IP Scholars File Comments with OSTP on Public Access to Scholarly Publications – Center for the Protection of Intellectual Property

“A group of intellectual property scholars filed comments yesterday with the Office of Science and Technology Policy (OSTP), asking it to forgo its plans to make all federally-funded scholarly publications free and open to the public upon initial publication. The comments were submitted in response to a notice of Request for Information (RFI) that was published in the Federal Register seeking recommendations “on approaches for ensuring broad public access to the peer-reviewed scholarly publications, data, and code that result from federally funded scientific research.”

While the RFI did not specifically mention intellectual property rights, it is clear that any proposal to provide free access to federally-funded scholarly publications would have significant ramifications for the copyright owners of those works. The comments argue that any such plan to further lessen the exclusive rights of these owners should be rejected as it “ignores and destroys the resource-intensive review, translation, and commercialization processes required to produce and disseminate these manuscripts” and “confuses the so-called public domain with the public sphere or market.” …”

Trump Administration Would ‘Eviscerate’ Copyright, Say Industry Players

““The Trump Administration should not permit the Office of Science and Technology Policy (OSTP) to eviscerate the key constitutional and economic function of copyright law by forcing US intellectual property owners to give away their copyrighted works for free to China and the rest of the world.”

Submission to the White House OSTP · Peter Suber

“As a result of the OSTP memorandum of February 2013, the largest federal research-funding agencies now require OA to research articles rising from their grants. But in every case they allow embargoes before those works must become OA. The 2013 memorandum itself recommends 12 months as the default embargo.

I’m writing to urge OSTP to reduce and ultimately eliminate these embargoes. They deliberately slow public access to publicly-funded research. In this way, they hinder researchers, research institutions, and research itself. For the same reasons, they hurt taxpayers who funded the research and for whom federal policy should maximize the public benefits of publicly-funded research. 

These embargoes were created in response to lobbying requests from publishers. In that sense, they benefit a private interest at the expense of the public interest. Yet to this day there is no evidence that eliminating embargoes would hurt publishers….”

OBP’s draft response to the UKRI Open Access consultation

“Here we share our draft response to the UKRI Open Access consultation. We will answer the questions that pertain to books and chapters, since that is our area of expertise.

Please annotate this post with any thoughts or relevant evidence you wish to share (we have integrated Hypothes.is to make this easy to do). Please also feel free to draw on our answers when writing your own response, if you are submitting one.

If you would like to express support for the arguments made here, you can sign this Google doc, which will be submitted as part of our response. If we make any changes to this draft response, they will be posted on this blog by noon on Thursday 28 May (24 hours before UKRI’s deadline) in case you wish to see the final version before signing….”

In pursuit of open science, open access is not enough | Science

“After decades of debate on the feasibility of open access (OA) to scientific publications, we may be nearing a tipping point. A number of recent developments, such as Plan S, suggest that OA upon publication could become the default in the sciences within the next several years. Despite uncertainty about the long-term sustainability of OA models, many publishers who had been reluctant to abandon the subscription business model are showing openness to OA (1). Although more OA can mean more immediate, global access to scholarship, there remains a need for practical, sustainable models, for careful analysis of the consequences of business model choices, and for “caution in responding to passionate calls for a ‘default to open’” (2). Of particular concern for the academic community, as subscription revenues decline in the transition to OA and some publishers prioritize other sources of revenue, is the growing ownership of data analytics, hosting, and portal services by large scholarly publishers. This may enhance publishers’ ability to lock in institutional customers through combined offerings that condition open access to journals upon purchase of other services. Even if such “bundled” arrangements have a near-term benefit of increasing openly licensed scholarship, they may run counter to long-term interests of the academic community by reducing competition and the diversity of service offerings. The healthy functioning of the academic community, including fair terms and conditions from commercial partners, requires that the global marketplace for data analytics and knowledge infrastructure be kept open to real competition.”

 

In pursuit of open science, open access is not enough | Science

“After decades of debate on the feasibility of open access (OA) to scientific publications, we may be nearing a tipping point. A number of recent developments, such as Plan S, suggest that OA upon publication could become the default in the sciences within the next several years. Despite uncertainty about the long-term sustainability of OA models, many publishers who had been reluctant to abandon the subscription business model are showing openness to OA (1). Although more OA can mean more immediate, global access to scholarship, there remains a need for practical, sustainable models, for careful analysis of the consequences of business model choices, and for “caution in responding to passionate calls for a ‘default to open’” (2). Of particular concern for the academic community, as subscription revenues decline in the transition to OA and some publishers prioritize other sources of revenue, is the growing ownership of data analytics, hosting, and portal services by large scholarly publishers. This may enhance publishers’ ability to lock in institutional customers through combined offerings that condition open access to journals upon purchase of other services. Even if such “bundled” arrangements have a near-term benefit of increasing openly licensed scholarship, they may run counter to long-term interests of the academic community by reducing competition and the diversity of service offerings. The healthy functioning of the academic community, including fair terms and conditions from commercial partners, requires that the global marketplace for data analytics and knowledge infrastructure be kept open to real competition.”

 

Research and open access from low‐ and middle‐income countries – Newton – 2020 – Developmental Medicine & Child Neurology – Wiley Online Library

“Open access publishing of scientific research could have a significant impact on science, development, and health in LMICs, but it does need support. Established publishing companies could do more to make papers accessible to researchers in LMICs and improve the immediacy of the research. Funders and philanthropic organizations should support the work they fund being open access. Authors should be encouraged to publish in open access journals or those journals that allow free access to research conducted in LMICs, or at least ensure that other researchers and communities have access to their findings for the benefit of communities in these areas.”

We support Plan S principles and will adopt an immediate open access policy from January 2022 | Cancer Research UK

“Open access publishing enables researchers to build on research findings without the barrier of paywalls or the need for subscription-based access. COVID-19 has turned the spotlight on the public health importance of quick and effective dissemination of research, including immediate open access to peer-reviewed research articles. 

Over the past year and a half, we have consulted our researcher and patient communities to understand their views on open access publishing. As part of this consultation, we have asked them whether we ought to support and/or fully implement the open access initiative ‘Plan S’.

We strongly support the aims and many of the key principles of Plan S, in particular its goal of making peer-reviewed scholarly research articles immediately openly accessible for all. Our detailed, face-to-face consultation sessions have shown that patients and researchers also support this goal.  

The guidance for implementing Plan S has been adjusted since the initial implementation plan was proposed at the end of 2018, and publishers are working to adjust their models to comply with current Plan S requirements. However, many researchers have concerns about the impact of Plan S upon implementation in January 2021, particularly concerning their ability to publish in hybrid journals. Researchers also expressed concerns over the differences in the current level of support for Plan S from funders across the globe, particularly in North America, which could disadvantage those tied to Plan S publishing requirements by their funders.  

Our priority is the effective dissemination and early availability of our research for patient benefit. While we are becoming a supporter of Plan S, and adopting an immediate open access policy that will come into effect from January 2022, we are not becoming a signatory at this stage, and will still provide funding for open access publishing costs for Cancer Research UK (CRUK)-funded articles in hybrid journals.  …”

We support Plan S principles and will adopt an immediate open access policy from January 2022 | Cancer Research UK

“Open access publishing enables researchers to build on research findings without the barrier of paywalls or the need for subscription-based access. COVID-19 has turned the spotlight on the public health importance of quick and effective dissemination of research, including immediate open access to peer-reviewed research articles. 

Over the past year and a half, we have consulted our researcher and patient communities to understand their views on open access publishing. As part of this consultation, we have asked them whether we ought to support and/or fully implement the open access initiative ‘Plan S’.

We strongly support the aims and many of the key principles of Plan S, in particular its goal of making peer-reviewed scholarly research articles immediately openly accessible for all. Our detailed, face-to-face consultation sessions have shown that patients and researchers also support this goal.  

The guidance for implementing Plan S has been adjusted since the initial implementation plan was proposed at the end of 2018, and publishers are working to adjust their models to comply with current Plan S requirements. However, many researchers have concerns about the impact of Plan S upon implementation in January 2021, particularly concerning their ability to publish in hybrid journals. Researchers also expressed concerns over the differences in the current level of support for Plan S from funders across the globe, particularly in North America, which could disadvantage those tied to Plan S publishing requirements by their funders.  

Our priority is the effective dissemination and early availability of our research for patient benefit. While we are becoming a supporter of Plan S, and adopting an immediate open access policy that will come into effect from January 2022, we are not becoming a signatory at this stage, and will still provide funding for open access publishing costs for Cancer Research UK (CRUK)-funded articles in hybrid journals.  …”

Unlocking Research | University of Cambridge Office of Scholarly Communication

“While we are now very adept at archiving manuscripts in Apollo (thanks in large part to Fast Track and Orpheus) it remains a challenge to properly and accurately update Apollo records with either correct embargoes for accepted manuscripts, or the open access version of record. It is a futile task to be constantly checking whether a manuscript has been published. While the Open Access Team keeps a list of every publication that requires updating, this is a thankless job that should be highly automatable.

To that end, we have recently leveraged Orpheus to do at lot of the heavy lifting for us. By interrogating every journal article in Apollo and comparing its metadata against Orpheus we can now quickly determine which items can be updated and take the necessary next steps, changing embargoes where appropriate or identifying opportunities to archive the published version of record.

To do this we created a DSpace curation task to check every “Article” type in Apollo that had at least one file that was currently under embargo. We then compared the publication metadata against the information held in Orpheus to determine what steps needed to be taken. In total we found 9,164 items in need of some attention. The results are displayed below in a Tableau Public visual and summarised in Table 1….”