2.5% for Open: An inventory of investment opportunities – Google Docs

“David Lewis recently proposed (see https://scholarworks.iupui.edu/handle/1805/14063 ) that libraries devote 2.5% of their total budget to support the common infrastructure needed to create the open scholarly commons….
In the early stages of exploring this idea, we want to come to some agreement about what would count as such an investment, and then build a registry that would allow libraries to record their investments in this area, track their investments over time, and compare their investments with like institutions. The registry would also serve as a guide for those looking for ideas for how to make the best investments for their institution, providing a listing of all ‘approved’ ways to invest in open, and as a place for those seeking investment to be discovered. As a first step towards building such a thing, we are crowdsourcing the creation of the inventory of ways to invest. Below you’ll find, organized by Lewis’ categories, a wide range of investments that many of us already make….” 

Open and Shut?: Realising the BOAI vision: Peter Suber’s Advice

Peter Suber’s current high-priority recommendations for advancing open access.

Open and Shut?: Achieving the BOAI Vision: Possible Actions for Realization

“A great deal of water has passed under the bridge since 2002, but as 2017 draws to an end what should the stakeholders of scholarly communication be doing now to fully realise the vision outlined at the Budapest meeting?…Today I am publishing the response I received from Lisa Janicke Hinchliffe, Professor/ Coordinator for Information Literacy Services and Instruction in the University Library and affiliate faculty in the School of Information Sciences at the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign.”


“Open Access 2020 is an international initiative that aims to induce the swift, smooth and scholarly-oriented transformation of today’s scholarly journals from subscription to open access publishing.

The principles of this initiative were discussed and agreed upon at the Berlin 12 Conference on 8-9 December 2015 and are embodied in an Expression of Interest, which has already been endorsed by numerous international scholarly organizations.

The practical steps that can be taken towards the envisaged transformation are outlined in a Roadmap.

All parties involved in scholarly publishing – particularly universities, research institutions, funders, libraries, and publishers – are invited to collaborate through OA2020 for a swift and efficient transition of scholarly publishing to open access.

This important initiative is open to further institutional signatories. …”

Academic Council Affirms Commitment to Open Access Efforts like OA2020

By letter to University of California President Janet Napolitano, the Academic Council has enthusiastically endorsed and affirmed university-wide commitments to make UC research and scholarship as freely and openly available as possible.

The letter of the Academic Council, which advises the UC President on behalf of the Assembly, updates President Napolitano on various campus efforts to fulfill the University’s mission of providing long-term societal benefits through transmitting advanced knowledge. As the Council notes, one way that the University has been working to achieve its mission is through implementation of the 2013 Open Access policy, pursuant to which UC scholars widely disseminate their scholarship by making copies available open access (OA). OA promotes free, immediate access to research articles and the rights to use these articles to advance knowledge worldwide.

Budapest Open Access Initiative | Open Access: Toward the Internet of the Mind

“On February 14, 2002, a small text of fewer than a thousand words quietly appeared on the Web: titled the “Budapest Open Access Initiative” (BOAI), it gave a public face to discussions between sixteen participants that had taken place on December 1 and 2, 2001 in Budapest, at the invitation of the Open Society Foundations (then known as the Open Society Institute)….Wedding the old – the scientific ethos – with the new – computers and the Internet – elicited a powerful, historically grounded synthesis that gave gravitas to the BOAI. In effect, the Budapest Initiative stated, Open Access was not the hastily cobbled up conceit of a small, marginal band of scholars and scientists dissatisfied with their communication system; instead, it asserted anew the central position of communication as the foundation of the scientific enterprise. Communication, as William D. Harvey famously posited, is the “essence of science,” and thanks to the Internet, scientific communication could be further conceived as the distributed system of human intelligence….”

OA2020 Roadmap

:This OA2020 roadmap, prepared in principle by the Max Planck Digital Library, is incorporated by reference in the OA2020 Expression of Interest (EoI), but is not binding on EoI signatories. Rather, this roadmap is intended to offer potential frameworks or guidelines for practical steps that can be taken to prepare for the envisaged open access transformation. As the EoI acknowledges, the large-scale transition to Open Access is intended to reflect community-specific publication preferences. While the roadmap will endeavor to encompass a broad range of approaches being adopted by various stakeholder communities as they are developed, the specific undertakings by any particular institution working toward OA2020 may not necessarily align with or conform to the roadmap’s suggestions. Entities that have signed the EoI may develop their own roadmaps reflective of institutional or community needs.

This roadmap is also designed as a living document. At the moment it focuses on the ‘activation phase’ in which some initial steps towards the OA2020 transformation are described; it will evolve as momentum develops. Max Planck Digital Library intends to solicit OA2020 community input to the roadmap on an ongoing basis. For reasons explained below, this document addresses mainly the library level within the structural organization of a research institution….”

Statement on scientific publications by three national Academies (Academie des sciences, Leopoldina and Royal Society)

“4 -Openarchives Pre-publication reviewing is important to control the quality of articles. However, open archives and preprint repositories also have a valuable role in allowing the rapid dissemination of scientific work and encouraging large scale, post-publication peer review by the entire community. To minimize delays in the dissemination of scientific work, articles should be deposited in open access repositories (also known as preprint servers). There are a number of established systems, including arXiv (for the physical sciences and mathematics) and bioRxiv (for the biological sciences). Such a deposit should not be considered a hindrance to the acceptance of an article by a journal and journals should make their policies clear on this matter. Significant effort should be made to improve the visibility of articles that have been deposited in open archives and which until now have not been taken into account by the main alerting services (for example Web of Science, Pubmed and Scopus).

5 -OpenAccess We support the principles of open access and would like to see all published scientific work freely available under fully open licenses as soon as possible at sustainable publication costs for the scientific community. We support both “green” and “gold” routes to open access and believe that the funds currently spent on journal subscriptions should be re-directed to fund publication charges. Ultimately, we believe that the “gold” open access publication route is likely to be the most sustainable option for open access journals, but that the payment of an article processing charge must be clearly separated from the editorial decision. We would like to see science publishing move away from large corporate interests and a stronger involvement of academies and learned societies in order that any surplus funds may be used for the benefit of science. At the same time, authors should always retain their intellectual property rights….”

The Global Gold Open Access “Flip”: A Realistic Plan or Magical Thinking? | The Scholarly Kitchen

“As long as there has been open access (OA), there has been talk of a global “flip” of research journals away from the subscription business model. The difficulties in coordinating an enormous number of stakeholders with different interests have continued to make this unlikely. However, a recent paper from the Max Planck Digital Library claiming that, “An internationally concerted shifting of subscription budgets is possible at no financial risk, maybe even at lower overall costs,” has once again fueled talk of a flip. Has this paper discovered a golden ticket to global OA sustainability, or is it based on flawed assumptions?…”

The Costs of Flipping our Dollars to Gold | The Scholarly Kitchen

“I spoke with the UC study’s co-principal investigators, MacKenzie Smith and Ivy Anderson, about the findings of their study and how these fit into wider prospects and challenges for accelerated moves towards OA.”