“Why should universities continue to own and profit from publicly-funded work? If the public pays for it, why shouldn’t the public own it? … However, unlike governmental funding, the funds given by a private company to an academic researcher also come with an expectation of ownership. The trouble arises when the university is unwilling to fund the work but is also unwilling to cede ownership of the resulting invention. (As an aside, this is not unlike the longstanding debate on open access to scientific papers)….I can understand the institution retaining some claim on the IP alongside the public because they are providing the infrastructure to enable this work, which is effectively considered an extension of this work by their faculty. But when the university pulls back research funding entirely and expects financial support of “its own” scientists to come entirely from public grants or private contracts, and then “double dips” – detracting from these grants’ operating expenses to support the indirect costs of maintaining the research lab, then ownership of the resulting IP should pass to the funding parties….”
“The global shift towards making research findings available free of charge for readers, so-called ‘Open access’, has been a core strategy in the European Commission to improve knowledge circulation and thus innovation. It is illustrated in particular by the general principle for open access to scientific publications in Horizon 2020 and the pilot for research data.”
[Undated but released c. February 8, 2018.]
“Research councils consider the journal impact factor and metrics such as the H-index are not appropriate measures for assessing the quality of publications or the contribution of individual researchers, and so will not use these measures in our peer review processes. …The research councils will highlight to reviewers, panel members, recruitment and promotion panels that they should not place undue emphasis on the journal in which papers are published, but assess the content of specific papers, when considering the impact of an individual researcher’s contribution….The Research Councils will sign DORA as a public indication of their support for these principles….”
“In recognition of the importance of open access to the biomedical sciences, the European Medical Research Councils (EMRC) of the European Science Foundation (ESF), at the instigation of its Core Group member Professor Josef Syka of the Czech Science Foundation and the Academy of Sciences of the Czech Republic (GA?R and AV?R), launched an activity to investigate what, if any, steps EMRC could usefully take to improve the open access landscape in the biomedical field across Europe…. The many valuable inputs from participants made it clear that the current model for accessing biomedical research is far from ideal and that all research stakeholders (funding agencies, publishers, research performing institutions, research libraries and learned societies) need to work together to shift to an open access model in the field. However, a number of potential hurdles, discussed in this briefing, remain to be overcome…. [T]his briefing makes a number of recommendations: 1. There is a moral imperative for open access: research papers should be made freely available to all to read, use and re-use, with appropriate acknowledgement, in order to maximise the value of biomedical research, build on the body of knowledge, accelerate the process of discovery and improve human health. 2. Individual agencies must work together to raise awareness of the moral imperative for open access: agencies and organisations that fund and perform research, libraries, publishers and researchers must work in concert to raise awareness of the moral imperative for open access publishing. National, European and international partnerships are the basis for the successful achievement of open access to research outputs. Specific actions that different agencies need to undertake in order to move towards this goal are outlined in this briefing. 3. All research stakeholders should work together to support the extension of Europe PubMed Central into a Europe-wide PubMed Central: in order to facilitate discoveries and innovation in biomedical research, research stakeholders should collaborate to establish a Europe-wide repository in biomedicine as a partner site to the US equivalent PubMed Central. The recently rebranded Europe PubMed Central represents a valuable means to achieving this goal, provided that the diversity of European partner mandates and policies can be integrated….”
“There seem to me to be at least two different things going on. First, the US Public Access Program is distributed, unnamed and not publicized. Second it is ideologically not popular with the OA movement, for various reasons.
To begin with, I have found in numerous discussions with OA people that there is a general lack of understanding of the Public Access Program.
It does not help that this large federal program has no actual name. I call it the “US Public Access Program” but that is just me. …”
“It can be difficult for researchers to understand what are their author rights, what articles they can archive in Open Access… Fortunately, political decisions are taken across Europe to strongly authorize free dissemination of knowledge. In Belgium, Wallonia-Brussels Federation has presented a decree in order to authorize the Open Access deposit of publicly funded research. Moreover, the federal government plans to propose a bill in this regard in 2018. The preliminary draft decree defining an Open access policy for publicly funded scientific publications in Wallonia-Brussels Federation (FWB) has passed second reading by the FWB government. This preliminary draft decree proposed by the Minister of Higher Education, Scientific Research and Media Jean-Claude Marcourt is intended to allow scientific publications of publicly funded research to be freely shared and disseminated. This takes place in the context of the Open Science movement promoted by the FWB.”