“How has the policy changed from the previous ARC Open Access Policy?
The revised policy issued on 30 June 2017 remains substantively the same as the previous version of the policy. The revisions remove ambiguities in application and includes:
The addition of a definitions section
The specification to make research ARC-funded research outputs openly accessible in an institutional repository has been removed, and replaced with the requirement that these outputs must be made openly accessible. Only the metadata for research outputs must be made available to the public in an institutional repository
The scope has been clarified to apply to all outputs, rather than just publications (journal articles and scholarly monographs as is currently the case) arising from ARC-funded research and its metadata
Greater guidance around the metadata requirements for ARC-funded research outputs
Specifying the need for appropriate licensing of research outputs in order to provide guidance on allowable access and reuse
Significantly clarifying the roles and responsibilities in relation to the ARC’s open access requirements.
The requirement that any research output arising from ARC funded research must be made openly accessible within a twelve (12) month period from the publication date has not changed….”
“Presentation given at Open Repositories 2017, Brisbane, Australia. General track 13: Evaluation and assessment. This presentation discusses the open agenda supported by funder policies in the United Kingdom (UK), how these policies interact with one another and the resulting implications for higher education institutions using the case study of the University of Cambridge. The University of Cambridge has responded to the challenges of open research by founding the Office of Scholarly Communication and dedicating specialized teams to manage compliance with both Open Access and research data requirements. Since 2013 the Open Access Service has processed over 10,000 article submissions and spent more than £7 million on article processing charges. The experiences at Cambridge in responding to these challenges are an important lesson for anyone engaged in open research. This talk offers some insights into a potential way to manage funder mandates, but also acts as a cautionary tale for other countries and institutions considering introducing mandates around Open Access and what the implementation of certain policies might entail. The skills around management of open policies are significantly different to traditional library activity, and this has implications for training and recruitment of staff.”
“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:
Publications Are Discoverable and Accessible Online. Publications will be deposited in a specified repository(s) with proper tagging of metadata.
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.
Foundation Will Pay Necessary Fees. The foundation would pay reasonable fees required by a publisher to effect publication on these terms.
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.
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.”
“[Q:] IF A RESEARCHER WORKING FOR A THIRD PARTY TO AN ERC PROJECT PUBLISHES AN ARTICLE BASED ON RESULTS OF THE PROJECT, DO THE OPEN ACCESS PROVISIONS OF SPECIAL CLAUSE 39 ERC ALSO APPLY IN THIS CASE?
[A:] For ERC projects, the Special Clause 39 ERC refers to scientific publications related to foreground from the project (where ‘scientific’ includes publications in the Social Sciences and Humanities). Whether the researcher who has published the article works directly for the beneficiary or for a third party is irrelevant….”
“Chronos is currently available to Gates grantees and employees. We anticipate making Chronos available to a wider audience sometime next year….Chronos processes and pays publisher Article Processing Charges (APCs) on behalf of grantees and employees, conducts policy compliancy checks, and tracks publishing activity, along with its impact….
“The implementation of open access policies in Europe is a socio-technical undertaking whereby a wide range of stakeholders work together to bring out the benefits of open access for European and global research. This work provides a unique overview of national awareness of open access in 32 European countries involving all EU member states and in addition, Norway, Iceland, Croatia, Switzerland and Turkey. It describes funder and institutional open access mandates in Europe and national strategies to introduce and implement them. An overview of the current European repository infrastructures is given, including institutional and disciplinary repositories, national repository networks, information portals and support networks. This work also outlines OpenAIREplus, a continuation project which aims to widen the scope of OpenAIRE by connecting publications to contextual information, such as research data and funding information. Opportunities for collaboration in order to achieve European and global synergies are also highlighted. The OpenAIRE project, a joint collaboration among 38 partners from 27 European countries, has built up a network of open repositories providing free online access to knowledge produced by researchers receiving grants from the European Commission or the European Research Council. It provides support structures for researchers, operates an electronic infrastructure and a portal to access all user-level services and works with several subject communities. Birgit Schmidt is affi liated with Goettingen State and University Library. Iryna Kuchma is affiliated with EIFL.”
“The beginning of April marked the end of the fourth year of RCUK’s Open Access (OA) policy. We submitted our finance and compliance report in May and have made our 2016-17 APC data available via the University’s institutional repository, Pure.
The headlines for us from this period are:
We have estimated 75% compliance for 2016-17 (54% Gold OA and 21% Green OA).
This is a significant increase in Green OA. In part this is due to the launch of HEFCE’s OA policy but it is also a consequence of the constraints of the block grant, ie, we have been unable to meet demand for Gold OA during the reporting period.
Despite the increase in Green OA, expenditure on Gold OA has not decreased. This is partly due to publishers that do not provide a compliant Green OA option but increased APC unit level costs are also a factor.
We have reported an 18% increase in the average APC cost in 2016/17 (£1869) against the 2015/16 average (£1578). To some extent this increase can be accounted for by foreign exchange rate differences.
Although we operate a ‘first come, first served’ model for allocating the block grant, it was necessary to impose restrictions for 3 months of this period. We limited expenditure to Pure Gold OA journals, non-OA publication fees and hybrid journals that do not provide a compliant Green OA option.
The level of Gold OA achieved has only been possible due to continued investment from the University (£0.2m) and credits/discounts received from publishers relating to subscription packages and offsetting deals (£0.1m).
We arranged Gold OA with 60 different publishers. Of these, we managed offsetting schemes and memberships with 11 and arranged Gold OA for only one paper with 20.
We continued to assess publisher deals to obtain best value from the block grant but are committed to engaging only with publishers that offer a reasonable discount and overall fair OA offer.
As in previous years, most APCs were paid to Elsevier (139), almost double the number paid to the next publisher, Wiley (75).
As in previous years, our highest cost APC (£4679) was paid to Elsevier. The lowest cost APC (£196) was paid to the Electrochemical Society.
We reported expenditure of £72,297 on ‘other costs’. This amount includes colour and page charges as well as publication fees associated with Green OA papers.
Despite reminders to authors that papers must be published as CC-BY, 8 papers were published under non-compliant licences and we were unable to identify licences for a further 16 papers. We contact publishers to correct licences when we are aware of a non-compliant licence.
We continued to see engagement with Gold OA from Humanities researchers who produce outputs other than journal articles. We have supported Gold OA for one monograph and one book chapter during the reporting period, at a cost of £11,340 from the block grant. A further monograph has been paid for from an institutional OA fund.
Despite a concerted effort on our part we continued to see inconsistency in the inclusion of grant acknowledgements on papers. We act in good faith when approving payment from the block grant but believe a joined up approach from RCUK, institutions and publishers is needed to ensure all researchers are aware and fulfil this requirement consistently.”
Require electronic copies of any research papers that have been accepted for publication in a peer-reviewed journal, and which acknowledge CRUK funding, to be made available through Europe PubMed Central(link is external) (Europe PMC) as soon as possible and no later than 6 months after publication.
Encourage you to select publishing routes that ensure the work is available immediately on publication in its final published form, wherever such options exist for their journal of choice and are compliant with our policy*.