“This policy aims to protect your rights so you can share your work openly.
This policy does not require you to publish in specific journals or share your research against your wishes.
You do not transfer copyright with this policy. You grant the University a nonexclusive license.
There is a no-questions-asked waiver provision built into the policy’s language.
With this policy, you will be able to
Share, teach with, and distribute your work freely
Broaden your scholarship’s reach, increase your scholarship’s impact
Support our institution’s commitment to publicly engaged research more fully
Encourage a more open, robust, equitable scholarly ecosystem…”
This presentation was given by Johan Rooryck during the Open Access Talk on 29 October 2020. Johan Rooryck, Professor at Leiden University and Executive Director of cOAlition S, briefly outlines the rationale for the principles of Plan S. Beyond that, he discusses its implementation for all grants awarded by cOAlition S funders from 1 January 2021, including the Horizon Europe framework. In his talk, Johan Rooryck covers the following questions: Which conditions do you need to fulfil to publish in a journal of your choice under Plan S? What can the newly developed Journal Checker Tool do for you? How does the recent Rights Retention Strategy help you to keep the rights to your Author Accepted Manuscript? In addition, Johan Rooryck mentions a number of other projects initiated by cOAlition S, such as the Price Transparency Framework to ensure that prices for publishing services become more transparent and fair or the commission of a study to identify concrete funding mechanisms to support and strengthen diamond journals and their platforms. The lecture “Plan S and funding – What is going to change?” was held as part of the Open Access Talk online series of the BMBF-funded project open-access.network.
Asking five correspondents, “Do you think that academics, considered as researchers, authors, and readers, understand copyright, licensing and how they may have recourse if their rights are abused? How may we better serve academia when it comes to rights issues?”
“This is all fine, but it is the next bit that has me confused. Plan S is requiring that a CC BY license be used. Clearly, a license does not affect copyright – the author may retain copyright. An author who then uses a CC BY license is then essentially providing blanket permission for reuse of their content provided there is attribution to the author. Is this a good thing? I am not sure. Does allowing reuse by others to derive profits, or combine with other products serve our academic communities and enhance research? There is perhaps an argument to be made for liberal reuse policies stimulating a serendipitous scientific finding in future years – but I see no evidence that this is more than a hope. I do understand that in some fields there may be a perceived gain in allowing, for example, Pharma to use a published work to enhance drug development – even if a significant motivating force is profit. But that gain remains unclear. CC BY allows the reuse of the words written in the article in that particular order as well as the images used in the article. It does not offer any ability to reuse the ideas or discoveries presented in the article beyond what is already permitted (and potentially not permitted through patents filed by the authors, which are still allowable under Plan S and other OA funder requirements)….”
Abstract: Universities want a voluntary, non-exclusive licence from authors to disseminate publications. This practitioner case study explores an innovative model to communicate and advance open and equitable scholarship through the implementation of the Global University Publications Licence at the University of Nottingham Ningbo China. This article explains the licensing policy and key influences, including, the copyright law of the People’s Republic of China and the Declaration on Research Assessment (DORA).
The University approved the Global University Publications Licence, with implementation from 1 August 2019. It is available in Chinese and English. Since implementation, the University has retained rights for 74% of research publications submitted. 100% of those publications are available through the University with a CC-BY licence and zero embargo. The open scholarship model provides an equitable approach to versions and citation. The article concludes by suggesting university libraries can exploit copyright law in China to progress open scholarship strategies, including recognition of employers as authors of works, a priority right to the exploitation of works and an embargo protection of two years after the completion of the work. The author’s final version of publications can be open, discoverable, cited and preserved through trusted universities with global reputations for high-quality research.
“The Rights Retention Strategy is perhaps one of the most complicated pieces of the cOAlition’s policy regime. Unpacking each word — rights, retention, and strategy — is one approach to better understanding what this policy is and how it functions within the Plan S compliance framework overall. …”
“What are the publishing requirements of ASAP [Aligning Science Across Parkinson’s] and Plan S?
All ASAP-funded researchers will follow the basic tenets of OA publication set forth in Plan S, as follows:
Immediate free access: Peer-reviewed, author-accepted research must be made freely available immediately upon publication, without any embargo period (zero embargo).
Unrestricted reuse rights:
ASAP funded authors or their institutions must retain the copyright for their research articles unless they are published in the public domain.
Articles must be published under the Creative Commons Attribution license CC-BY 4.0, or under the CC0 license which does not require attribution, or equivalent. Both licenses permit reuse of the material without restriction….”
Open Science policymakers, Research Funding Organizations and Research Performing Organizations managers, librarians, repository managers and academic institutional copyright experts.
We will organise a separate event for publishers….”
The statement published earlier today (3rd February) by the STM Association and signed by a number of its members, continues to perpetuate a number of myths and errors relating to the Rights Retention Strategy.
“The undersigned share with cOAlition S the goal to expand Open Research and are committed to supporting cOAlition S-funded researchers through the various paths provided for Open Access. However, we are unable to support one route to compliance offered by Plan S, the “Rights Retention Strategy”, in its current form. The Rights Retention Strategy provides a challenge to the vital income that is necessary to fund the resources, time, and effort to provide not only the many checks, corrections, and editorial inputs required but also the management and support of a rigorous peer review process, a process that is of fundamental value and is essential to the verification of results.
The Rights Retention Strategy ignores long-standing academic freedoms and will work against the shared objective of a more open and equitable scholarly ecosystem. It provides an immediate free substitute that eliminates the ability to charge for the services that publishers provide, whether via subscriptions or Article Publishing Charges. As such, the Rights Retention Strategy is not financially sustainable and undermines potential support for open access journals. Additionally, it will undermine the integrity of the Version of Record, which is the foundation of the scientific record, and its associated codified mechanisms for corrections, retractions and data disclosure.
While many publishers, including some of the undersigned, are able to provide options that allow authors to post versions of articles to repositories with broad reuse license, to be sustainable this is a decision that needs to be applied at the level of individual journals, not through blanket policies. The signatory publishers therefore oppose the approach of the Rights Retention Strategy in its current form and urge authors to consult with their journals of choice as to what is allowed. …”