Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation Open Access Policy – Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation

“As of January 1, 2015 our Open Access policy will be effective for all new agreements. During a two-year transition period, publishers will be permitted to apply up to a 12 month embargo period on the accessibility of the publication and its underlying data sets. This embargo period will no longer be allowed after January 1, 2017.

Our Open Access policy contains the following elements:

  1. Publications Are Discoverable and Accessible Online.  Publications will be deposited in a specified repository(s) with proper tagging of metadata. 

  2. Publication Will Be On “Open Access” Terms.  All publications shall be published under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 Generic License (CC BY 4.0) or an equivalent license. This will permit all users of the publication to copy and redistribute the material in any medium or format and transform and build upon the material, including for any purpose (including commercial) without further permission or fees being required. 

  3. Foundation Will Pay Necessary Fees.  The foundation would pay reasonable fees required by a publisher to effect publication on these terms. 

  4. Publications Will Be Accessible and Open Immediately.  All publications shall be available immediately upon their publication, without any embargo period.   An embargo period is the period during which the publisher will require a subscription or the payment of a fee to gain access to the publication. We are, however, providing a transition period of up to two years from the effective date of the policy (or until January 1, 2017).  During the transition period, the foundation will allow publications in journals that provide up to a 12-month embargo period.

  5. Data Underlying Published Research Results Will Be Accessible and Open Immediately.  The foundation will require that data underlying the published research results be immediately accessible and open.  This too is subject to the transition period and a 12-month embargo may be applied.”

Open Access Publishing in China

Following rapid development in the economy and huge investment in R&D, China is now widely recognised as one of the leading countries of the world in terms of the number of published journals and scientific articles. In 2015, there were over 10,000 journals in China, of which 4983 (49.76%) were in Science and Technology, according to the “Statistical Data of Chinese Science and Technology Papers 2015.

Kotilava – Finnish academic journals towards immediate Open Access | Kotilava

“In their joint effort, Kotilava, The Federation of Finnish Learned Societies and The National Library of Finland support Finnish scholarly journals in their transition to immediate Open Access. This project, being a part of the Open Science and Research Initiative in Finland (ATT), proceeds via two subprojects. First, the platform for editing and publishing OA journals are improved. Second, a new consortium based funding model for Finnish OA journals will be created….”

Exploiting Elsevier’s Creative Commons License Requirement to Subvert Embargo

“In the last round of author sharing policy revisions, Elsevier created a labyrinthine title-by-title embargo structure requiring embargoes from 12-48 months for author sharing via institutional repository (IR), while permitting immediate sharing via author’s personal website or blog. At the same time, all pre-publication versions are to bear a Creative Commons-Attribution-Noncommercial-No Derivatives (CC-BY-NC-ND) license. At the time this policy was announced, it was rightly criticized by many in the scholarly communication community as overly complicated and unnecessary. However, this CC licensing requirement creates an avenue for subverting the embargo in the IR to achieve quicker open distribution of the author’s accepted manuscript. In short, authors may post an appropriately licensed copy on their personal site, at which point we may deposit without embargo in the IR, not through the license granted in the publication agreement, but through the CC license on the author’s version, which the sharing policy mandates. This poster will outline this issue, our experimentation with application, and engage viewers in questions regarding its potential risks, benefits, and workflows.”

 

Open Access-Monographien – Rudolf Mumenthaler

English Translation (Google): Open Access Monographs

“Es wirkt ja schon widersprüchlich, wenn eine Monographie zu Open Access zunächst geschlossen publiziert wird und erst in einem Jahr unter einer CC-BY-Lizenz freigegeben wird. Ich kenne allerdings dieses Dilemma auch aus Autorensicht und möchte mich vor diesem Hintergrund zur aktuellen Kritik am Praxishandbuch Open Access äussern.”

English Translation (Google): “It is already contradictory if a monograph on Open Access is first published in a closed version and is only released in a year under a CC-BY license. I know, however, this dilemma also from authoring and would like to express myself against this background to the current criticism of the Praxishandbuch Open Access.”

Sci-Hub study suggests publishers’ embargoes ‘not viable’ | THE News

“Described as the “Napster” of scholarly publishing, the popularity of the Sci-Hub website reflects researchers’ frustration with the inaccessibility of journal papers behind paywalls. Now, one of the first academic studies of the platform, which offers free use of millions of articles, suggests that publishers’ responses to the open access movement are proving ineffective, too. Bastian Greshake, doctoral student in applied bioinformatics at Goethe University Frankfurt, found that 35 per cent of articles downloaded from Sci-Hub were less than two years old when they were accessed. He said this indicated that publishers’ minimum embargo periods – which keep papers behind paywalls for a year or two before they are made freely available – were unlikely to halt the spread of “guerrilla open access” platforms….”

The Lancet journals welcome a new open access policy – The Lancet (April 2013)

“The Lancet journals welcome and support all efforts to make research more widely accessible and useable in ways that continue to sustain our broad mission to serve clinical medicine and global health. We will, in accordance with the new RCUK policy, offer either a “gold” open access choice with a creative commons license after payment of an article processing charge of US$5000, or a “green” open access solution—where authors can deposit the final accepted version of their paper in any repository they choose 6 months after publication—for all RCUK-funded research papers submitted after April 1. In addition, for the “green” open access solution we will also make the published paper free to access on our websites 6 months after publication.

These options and a choice of three different creative commons licenses (CC-BY, CC BY-NC-SA, or CC BY-NC-ND) will be open to authors of all research papers supported by those funders with whom we currently have payment agreements….”

The Lancet journals welcome a new open access policy – The Lancet (April 2013)

“The Lancet journals welcome and support all efforts to make research more widely accessible and useable in ways that continue to sustain our broad mission to serve clinical medicine and global health. We will, in accordance with the new RCUK policy, offer either a “gold” open access choice with a creative commons license after payment of an article processing charge of US$5000, or a “green” open access solution—where authors can deposit the final accepted version of their paper in any repository they choose 6 months after publication—for all RCUK-funded research papers submitted after April 1. In addition, for the “green” open access solution we will also make the published paper free to access on our websites 6 months after publication.

These options and a choice of three different creative commons licenses (CC-BY, CC BY-NC-SA, or CC BY-NC-ND) will be open to authors of all research papers supported by those funders with whom we currently have payment agreements….”

Publicity without scrutiny: journals’ media embargoes under fire | Times Higher Education (THE)

“The issuing of press releases about academic research that is not openly available impedes fact-checking and public debate, it has been warned.

MPs on the UK’s science and technology committee said that they took a “dim view” of the issuing of press releases without allowing access to the full peer-reviewed reports, having heard evidence that publishers were using embargoes as “news management” tools in such cases….In its evidence, Imperial College London says that some of the drawbacks of the embargo system “could be addressed if press releases and the journal papers on which they are based were required to be publicly available and linked from online news reports as part of the embargo contract”.

Felicity Mellor, senior lecturer in science communication at Imperial, told Times Higher Education that journals should make research papers available to journalists, “regardless of whether they’re open access”….”

Back to Grey : Disclosure and Concealment of Electronic Theses and Dissertations

Abstract: The open access principle requires that scientific information be made widely and readily available to society. Defined in 2003 as a “comprehensive source of human knowledge and cultural heritage that has been approved by the scientific community”, open access implies that content be openly accessible and this needs the active commitment of each and every individual producer of scientific knowledge. Yet, in spite of the growing success of the open access initiative, a significant part of scientific and technical information remains unavailable on the web or circulates with restrictions. Even in institutional repositories (IRs) created to provide access to the scientific output of an academic institution, more or less important sectors of the scientific production are missing. This is because of lack of awareness, embargo, deposit of metadata without full text, confidential content etc. This problem concerns in particular electronic theses and dissertations (ETDs) that are disseminated with different status – some are freely available, others are under embargo, confidential, restricted to campus access (encrypted or not) or not available at all. While other papers may be available through alternative channels (journals, monographs etc.), ETDs most often are not. Our paper describes a new and unexpected effect of the development of digital libraries and open access, as a paradoxical practice of hiding information from the scientific community and society, while partly sharing it with a restricted population (campus). The study builds on a review of recent papers on ETDs in IRs and evaluates the availability of ETDs in a small panel of European and American academic IRs and networks. It provides empirical evidence on the reality of restricted access and proposes a model of independent variables affecting decisions on embargo and on-campus access, together with a table of different degrees of (non) open access to ETDs in IRs. The paper builds on a study conducted in Lille between January and April 2013 (Schöpfel & Prost 2013) and contributes to a French-German survey on ETD embargoes carried out by the Institute for Science Networking at the University of Oldenburg and the University of Lille.