“An overview of the open access related rules for ERC funded researchers can be found on the ERC website. Note that Article 29.2 of the ERC Model Grant Agreement is slightly different from the corresponding article in the general Horizon 2020 Model Grant Agreement. Details on the application of the article to ERC grants can be found in the ERC specific part of the Annotated Model Grant Agreement.”
“In Horizon 2020 Open Access to Scientific Peer Reviewed Publications has been anchored as an ‘underlying principle’, which means that it has become obligatory for all projects. Open access to scientific peer reviewed publications in Horizon 2020 The EC Guidelines on Open Access to Scientific Publications and Research Data in Horizon 2020 Version 3.1, 25 August 2016 Open Access Guidelines for research results funded by the ERC (revised December 2014) More information can be found in the ‘Regulation and the Rules of Participation’ as well as through the relevant provisions in the grant agreement (see Article 29 “Dissemination of results – Open Access – Visibility of EU funding”of the Multi-beneficiary General Model Grant Agreement, July 20, 2016, pp. 66-69) as well as exceptions for confidentiality (Article 36), security (Article 37), personal data (Article 39). A short summary : Factsheet on Open Access”
“What are One Mind’s open science principles?
To support Open Science for brain disease and injury, One Mind urges the international research community to adopt the following principles:
Provide informed consents for collection of medical data obtained from patients, which should permit use of their de-identified (anonymous) data for research related to a broad range of conditions — consistent with protecting patient privacy.
Use widely accepted common data elements and conform to the highest possible standards when clinical data is collected. This enables it to be used by the widest possible array of users, whether academic, medical, clinical or commercial.
Make data available to the research community as soon as possible after study completion, with the goal of opening data access within six months whenever possible.
Make data accessible to external researchers during the course of a study (subject to relevant data use agreements).
Give data generators proper attribution & credit from those who use their data.
Do not delay the publication of findings, as it may affect patient care.
Intellectual property should not stand in the way of research, but be used to incentivize material participation….”
“As work comes to a close on the OA Dashboard project, we wanted to share our findings and conclusions and give an outline of what we are planning to do next in this space. Taken forward by Research Consulting in partnership with Pleiade Management and Consultancy and Digirati, the project aimed to assess the feasibility of a dashboard that would support institutions by combining and visualising data on OA. Such a system has the potential to improve institutional workflows by providing easier access to information on OA….
We reached the conclusion that a full business case cannot be built at this time, as the strength of the available evidence is, on average, low, and does not enable a strong case for further investment to be made. A key factor is that, although there is a gap in terms of analysing data on OA, open data sources are not mature enough to power a dashboard and may undermine the validity of its outputs.Whilst it is recommended that the development of a dashboard of this nature is put on hold and re-evaluated in the future, Jisc recognises the importance of centralised systems that enable libraries in being able to monitor their OA activity, encourage the discovery of OA content and support decision-making relating to their library holdings more generally. Therefore, the sector should be assured that work will continue in earnest to investigate new, innovative ways of working in this area….”
“Background: The Gordon and Betty Moore Foundation (GBMF) was interested in understanding the potential effects of a policy requiring open access to peer-reviewed publications resulting from the research the foundation funds. Methods: We collected data on more than 2000 publications in over 500 journals that were generated by GBMF grantees since 2001. We then examined the journal policies to establish how two possible open access policies might have affected grantee publishing habits. Results: We found that 99.3% of the articles published by grantees would have complied with a policy that requires open access within 12 months of publication. We also estimated the maximum annual costs to GBMF for covering fees associated with “gold open access” to be between $400,000 and $2,600,000 annually. Discussion: Based in part on this study, GBMF has implemented a new open access policy that requires grantees make peer-reviewed publications fully available within 12 months.”
“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….”
“This web site allows the comparison of any Open Access (OA) policy registered in ROARMAP database with the Horizon2020 funding program OA requirements.
Data are fetched directly from the ROARMAP web site and web API.
The criteria used to determine the level of compliance of a ROARMAP-classified policy with H2020 OA requirements have been documented in this document ….”