“PA members are deeply concerned about a proposal from a scholarly communications working group to introduce a new model licence within HEIs. The SCL would give the implementing university a non-exclusive licence to make work open access on publication, in conflict with any green open licence in place with a publisher, and with an option for a researcher to secure a waiver from the HEI should the publisher require it.
Principal concerns are the significant administrative burden on researchers, institutions and publishers that could arise as waivers are requested; a conflict with UK policy on OA; the way the SCL seeks immediate non-commercial re-use rights for all UK research outputs; and the potential limit it places on the choice of researchers over where to publish.
The documents on this page set out the publisher position. …”
From Google’s English: “Many US universities can publish scientific articles directly open access. They makeuse the Harvard open access licensing model for this. This article examines whether the Harvardlicensing model under Dutch law is permitted. That appears to be the case. That makes it for authors and institutions in the Netherlands very easy to meet the open access requirements of grant providers,as recently formulated in Plan S.”
From Google’s English: “Many US universities can publish scientific articles directly open access. For this they use the Harvard open access licensing model. This article examines whether the Harvard licensing model is permitted under Dutch law. That appears to be the case. This makes it very easy for authors and institutions in the Netherlands to comply with the open access requirements of grant providers, as they have recently been formulated in Plan S.”
Abstract: One of the cornerstones of scientific advancement is academic, peer-review publishing. Published articles are critical to advancing scientific research and disseminating verified results to other scientists and the public. Despite its importance, the copyright issues surrounding publishing are poorly understood by many of its scientific authors. In an effort to demystify and empower scientific authors, this Note discusses copyright ownership during the peer-review publishing process, loss of author copyright through publishing agreements, and remedies authors may employ to protect and distribute their works.
“In my own view, to achieve this equity and diversity, we need to go beyond article processing charges (APCs) and the aims of transformative agreements. A reliance on APCs excludes authors who cannot find the money to pay them, and that burden falls disproportionately on authors from the global south and from less affluent institutions in the global north. We need to develop truly transformative models that leverage the opportunities of the digital age and fully remove cost barriers: no fees for authors or readers. We need to envision distributed, trusted networks, rather than letting control rest within just a few entities. We need academic control of academic work. We need to invest in reasonable and transparent costs, ideally within an open-source framework, for infrastructure and services that enable the use of that scholarly work.
Plan S gives a nod in the direction of new platforms: “Plan S is NOT just about a publication fee model of Open Access publishing. cOAlition S supports a diversity of sustainability models for Open Access journals and platforms…” Last fall, I appreciated seeing the Plan S feedback provided jointly by Harvard and MIT, including this statement: “We’d like to see Plan S reinforce and expand — rather than neglect or unintentionally hinder — the power of open-access repositories to democratize access to science and scholarship.” Earlier this October, the Confederation of Open Access Repositories (COAR) and cOAlition S issued a joint statement noting that “Repositories offer a low-cost, high-value option for providing Open Access and are also a mechanism for introducing innovation in scholarly communication, acting as vehicles for developing new dissemination models and providing access to a wide range of scholarly content.” …”
“The core principles of an MIT Framework for publisher contracts are:
No author will be required to waive any institutional or funder open access policy to publish in any of the publisher’s journals.
No author will be required to relinquish copyright, but instead will be provided with options that enable publication while also providing authors with generous reuse rights.
Publishers will directly deposit scholarly articles in institutional repositories immediately upon publication or will provide tools/mechanisms that facilitate immediate deposit.
Publishers will provide computational access to subscribed content as a standard part of all contracts, with no restrictions on non-consumptive, computational analysis of the corpus of subscribed content.
Publishers will ensure the long-term digital preservation and accessibility of their content through participation in trusted digital archives.
Institutions will pay a fair and sustainable price to publishers for value-added services, based on transparent and cost-based pricing models….”
“The MIT Libraries, together with the MIT Committee on the Library System and the Ad Hoc Task Force on Open Access to MIT’s Research, announced that it has developed a principle-based framework to guide negotiations with scholarly publishers. The framework emerges directly from the core principles for open science and open scholarship articulated in the recommendations of the Task Force on Open Access to MIT’s Research, which released its final report to the MIT community on Oct. 18.
The framework affirms the overarching principle that control of scholarship and its dissemination should reside with scholars and their institutions. It aims to ensure that scholarly research outputs are openly and equitably available to the broadest possible audience, while also providing valued services to the MIT community….”
“The Massachusetts Institute of Technology has published its final recommendations on how to increase the open sharing of MIT publications, data, software and educational materials.
An open-access task force was convened in 2017 to update and revise MIT’s open-access policies. The task force published its final recommendations last week. A draft set of recommendations was released in March 2019 for public comment.
The task force recommend that MIT ratify a set of open-access principles, create an open-access fund for monographs and work with department heads to encourage open practices across all disciplines. The existing MIT Faculty Open Access Policy will be expanded to include students, staff, postdoctoral fellows and research staff….”
“Over the past decade, colleges and universities have been adopting institutional open access (OA) policies that encourage, direct, or give rights to authors to make their research publicly available in institutional repositories (IRs). These networked databases are often created to serve these OA policies, distributing an author’s research to a global online audience. Without copyright law, these policies and the supporting IRs could not exist: copyright law is the engine of a successful OA policy and thereby a successful IR. In particular, US copyright law features a statute that allows creators to transfer rights for a work without actually giving up total control of it. These non-exclusive rights are the foundation of the OA movement in the US.
This chapter begins with a brief introduction to the benefits and management of OA policies, focusing on their basis in copyright law and author rights. It continues with an examination of the ongoing disagreements among OA practitioners and publishers about what OA actually means and how the term “open access” can pose communication and workflow challenges for those working with institutional OA policies. Within this context, the authors describe common OA policy workflows and the activities librarians undertake to determine what version of an article can be deposited in an IR as well as how to communicate these nuances to campus stakeholders. It concludes with advice on how an IR can be used to advocate for author rights and comply with copyright law.”
“In 2016, the Open Access Task Force was charged with taking up the question of whether MIT should strengthen its activities in support of providing open access to the research and educational contributions of the MIT community. We were also asked to coordinate an Institute-wide discussion on this topic. To this end, after 18 months of work, we developed recommendations for changes and enhancements to policy, infrastructure, and advocacy. We offer these recommendations after wide consultation across the Institute and beyond, and with the intent of sparking an even wider conversation across the MIT community and other stakeholder communities. We believe these recommendations will strengthen MIT’s commitment to open science and scholarship and allow people around the globe to build on MIT-created work as we all aim to tackle the world’s challenges, big and small.”