Knowledge sharing: OA and preservation in Europe

Sharing knowledge:
open access
and preservation
in Europe
Conclusions of a strategic
workshop - Brussels,
25-26 November 2010

ReseaRch & InnovatIon
POLICY

EUROPEAN COMMISSION

Directorate-General for Research and Innovation
Directorate B – European Research Area
Unit B.6 – Ethics and gender

Contact: Francesco Fusaro

Office SDME 03/17
B-1049 Brussels

Tel. (32-2) 29-87458
Fax (32-2) 29-84694
E-mail: francesco.fusaro@ec.europa.eu
RTD-OPEN-ACCESS@ec.europa.eu

EUROPEAN COMMISSION

SHARING KNOWLEDGE:
OPEN ACCESS AND
PRESERVATION IN EUROPE

Conclusions of a strategic workshop
Brussels, 25-26 November 2010

REPORT
by
Alma Swan
(Rapporteur)

Prepared by:
Alma Swan, Enabling Open Scholarship
2 Denver Place
Elm Grove Road
Topsham
Devon
EX3 0EP
United Kingdom
+44 (0)1392 879702
a.swan@talk21.com
www.openscholarship.org

EUROPE DIRECT is a service to help you find answers
to your questions about the European Union.

Freephone number (*):

00 800 6 7 8 9 10 11
(*) Certain mobile telephone operators do not allow access to 00 800 numbers or these calls may be billed.

LEGAL NOTICE

Neither the European Commission nor any person acting on behalf of the Commission is
responsible for the use which might be made of the following information.

The views expressed in this publication are the sole responsibility of the author
and do not necessarily refl ect the views of the European Commission.

A great deal of additional information on the European Union is available on the Internet.
It can be accessed through the Europa server (http://europa.eu).

Cataloguing data can be found at the end of this publication.

Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union, 2011

ISBN 978-92-79-20449-4
doi:10.2777/63410

© European Union, 2011
Reproduction is authorised provided the source is acknowledged.

Contents
Executive Summary ��5
Section ONE: The workshop �� 9
1.1 The background to the Workshop...................................................................10
1.2 Aims and objectives ........................................................................................10
1.3 Representation at the Workshop ....................................................................10
1.4 Format of the Workshop ................................................................................. 11
1.5 Why national experts attended the Workshop ............................................... 11
1.6 The overall vision: why Open Access and preservation are important..........12
1.7 Progress in the Member States .....................................................................13
1.7.1. Open Access-related experiences of Member States ........................13
1.7.1.1. At institutional level.......................................................................................................... 13
1.7.1.2. At national level................................................................................................................ 13
1.7.2. Problems or bottlenecks encountered ................................................14
1.7.2.1. Lack of awareness and understanding amongst researchers..................14 .
1.7.2.2. Lack of awareness and understanding amongst policymakers...............14
1.7.2.3. Lack of policy...................................................................................................................14
1.7.2.4. Copyright............................................................................................................................15
1.7.2.5. Financial cost of implementation............................................................................15
1.7.2.6. Quality control..................................................................................................................15
1.7.3. The key success factors in overcoming these bottlenecks
and problems .......................................................................................15
1.7.3.1. Open Access policies .........................................................................15
1.7.3.2. Advocacy and cultural change work...................................................15
1.7.3.3. Infrastructural aspects of implementation ...........................................16
1.7.3.4. Funding ..............................................................................................16
1.7.3.5. Collaborative approaches ..................................................................16
1.7.4. The results, impacts and benefits .......................................................16
1.7.4.1. Policy development .............................................................................16
1.7.4.2. Culture change ...................................................................................16
1.7.4.3. Infrastructure ......................................................................................16
1.8 Suggestions for concrete actions ..................................................................17
1.8.1. Preservation of scientific information and experimental data ............17
1.8.2. How Open Access can make knowledge more
connected and accessible ..................................................................18
1.8.3. Publisher relations and negotiations .................................................18
1.8.4. Measuring Open Access outputs and collecting
evidence of the benefits of Open Access ...........................................19
1.8.5. National policies on Open Access ......................................................19
1.8.6. Making repositories user/researcher-friendly .....................................20
1.8.7. Open Access impact indicators as a replacement
for existing research bibliometric systems..........................................20
1.8.8. Linking European and national levels .................................................21
1.9 Priorities for the recommended actions .........................................................21

Section TWO: Discussion of the outcomes��23
2.1 Stakeholder engagement / involvement (advocacy).......................................25
2.2 Top-level engagement and support (policy development) ............................27
2.3 Collaborations and partnerships (coordination).............................................28
2.4 Implementation and manifestations (infrastructure) ......................................29

Section THREE: Recommendations��35
3.1 Advocacy .........................................................................................................36
3.2 Policy ...............................................................................................................36
3.3 Rights ..............................................................................................................36
3.4 Infrastructure ...................................................................................................37
3.5 Business models .............................................................................................37

References��38
Appendices �� 41
APPENDIX ONE: Workshop participants ��42
APPENDIX TWO: The format of the Workshop ��44
APPENDIX THREE: Open access – The European context ��45
APPENDIX FOUR: Questionnaire on national open access
and preservation policies �� 51

6
SHARING KNOWLEDGE: OPEN ACCESS AND PRESERVATION IN EUROPE

AWorkshopwasheldinBrusselson25-26November2010,attendedbyaround20invited
nationalexpertsfromEUMemberStates,withtheaimsof:gettinganunderstanding
of Member States’ implementation of the 2007 Council Conclusions on scientific
informationinthedigitalage;sharingexperiencesandknow-howregardingsuccessful
implementationsandbestpractices;andcreatingacommonvisionofwhatcanbedone
nextintermsofpolicyandactionatMemberStateandatEuropeanlevels.

Thisreportdocumentstheproceedings,setstheminthecontextofdevelopments
sofaronOpenAccessandpreservationataninternationallevelandmakesasetof
recommendationsforfutureECaction.

OneissueaddressedwaswhyOpenAccessandpreservationareimportant.Theexperts
listedbothhigh-level,principle-basedreasonsandmorepragmaticones.Theformer
categoryincludedthemoralargumentthattheresultsofpublicly-fundedresearchshould
bepubliclyavailable,thatOpenAccessenablesresearchfindingstobesharedwiththe
widerpublic,helpingtocreateaknowledgesocietyacrossEuropecomposedofbetter-
informedcitizens,andthatOpenAccessenhancesknowledgetransfertosectorsthatcan
directlyusethatknowledgetoproducebettergoodsandservices.Themorepractice-
focusedreasonswerethatOpenAccessimprovesresearchefficiency,andenablesre-use
ofresearchoutputs,providesthebasisforbetterresearchmonitoringandevaluation.
PreservationofresearchoutputsensuresthattheculturalheritageofEuropeisprotected
andcuratedforfuturegenerationsandthatscientificoutputsarekeptinformatsthat
ensuretheyarepermanentlyusableandaccessible.

ParticipantsreportedonprogressonOpenAccessandpreservationintheindividual
MemberStates.AtinstitutionalleveltherehavebeenprojectsonOpenAccessinindividual
universities, progress on the development of CRIS (Current Research Information
Systems),andsomeprogressonpolicydiscussion.AtnationallevelOpenAccesshas
beenincorporatedintonationalstrategyforscienceandresearchinsomecountries.At
infrastructurallevel,nationalarchivesforOpenAccesscontent–ornationalharvesting
systems,presentingOpenAccessmaterialthroughnationalportals–havebeensetupin
someMemberStates.

Bottleneckshaveprimarilybeen:lackofawarenessandunderstandingofOpenAccess
amongstresearchersandpolicymakers;limitedpolicydevelopment;issuesaround
copyright(authorsoftenbelievethatmakingtheirworkOpenAccessinfringescopyright
andinsomeMemberStatescopyrightlawimpedesOpenAccess);misconceptionsamong
authorsaboutqualitycontrol,whichtheybelieveerroneouslytobeabsentfortheOpen
Accessliterature;andthefinancialcostofimplementationofOpenAccess.

Keysuccessfactorsinovercomingthesebottleneckshavebeen:goodpolicydevelopment
atinstitutionalandnationallevel;well-designedadvocacyandculture-changeworkat
authorandpolicymakerlevels;infrastructuraldevelopments;adequatefundingfor
infrastructuralandadvocacywork;andthedevelopmentofeffectivecollaborative
approachesinvolvingvariousstakeholderswhosharethemission.

The results and impacts of overcoming the bottlenecks and barriers are: policy
implementationatinstitutionalandnationallevel;culturechangeintermsofachieving

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 7

good self-archiving levels (‘Green’ Open Access) and raising awareness; and the
developmentofinfrastructuresthatsupportOpenAccessandpreservation,suchas
nationalharvestingsystemsandnationalpreservationarrangements.

Participantsagreedalistofprioritiesforconcreteactionsthatcanbetakenasaresultof
theWorkshop.Thesewere:

• Stakeholderengagement/involvement(advocacy).Suggestedactionpointsin
thisareawere:creationofnewmetricsforOpenAccesscontent;developmentof
indicatorstodemonstratethebenefitsofOpenAccess;furtherawareness-raising
activities;developmentofincentivesforauthorsandpublisherstoincreasethe
amountofOpenAccesscontent;encouragingthesharingofgoodpractices
• Top-levelengagementandsupport(policydevelopment).Suggestedactionpoints
underthisheadingwere:makingthe‘Green’routetoOpenAccess(through
repositories)mandatory; developmentofpoliciesatgovernment,funder,and
institutionallevelacrossEurope;explorationofcopyrightlawsinEUstateswitha
viewtorecommendingmodificationorcreatinganewlawpertainingtoacademic
researchoutputs
• Collaborationsandpartnerships.Suggestedactionpointsforthisareawere:
coordinationactivitiestosupportadvocacyandothersupportingactionsforOpen
Access;identifyexistinginitiativesandbuilduponthem;encouragethesharingof
goodpractices
• Implementationandmanifestations(infrastructures).Suggestedactionpointsfor
thistopicwere:developmentofstandardsforallaspectsofOpenAccess;funding
forinfrastructuraldevelopments;investmentine-researchinfrastructuresin
Europe,especiallythosethatsupportthedevelopmentoftheOpenDataagenda;
investmoreeffortindevelopmentoftechnologiesandenablersofOpenData;
developtechnicalinfrastructuretosupportpreservationofresearchoutputs;fund
workondataandmetadatacurationforthelong-term;developmentoftoolsto
supportdepositandcurationofcontentinOpenAccesscollections;investigation
ofnewbusinessmodelsapplicabletoOpenAccess

Theseoutcomesarediscussed(bytheRapporteur)inthisreportinthelightofcontextual
backgroundinformationanddevelopments.Aseriesofrecommendationsarethenmade
asfollows:

Recommendation 1: BuildonwhatwasachievedbytheWorkshoptostrengthenthe
nascentnetworkandenableandencouragefurtherinteractionsandcollaborations
(coordination)

Recommendation 2: Encourageandsupportinitiativesthataimtodevelopadvocacy
programmesacrosstheUnion

Recommendation 3:Fundthedevelopmentofindicatorsthatbetterassessscientific
progressandmeasurethebenefittostakeholdercommunitiesacrosssociety

Recommendation 4: EnablecoordinationofpolicyatEuropeanlevel

8

Recommendation 5:Encourageandsupportinitiativesthataimtoincreaseawarenessand
understandingoftheissuesaroundOpenAccessandpreservationatpolicymakerlevels

Recommendation 6:Informandencourageauthorsandinstitutions(andfunderswhere
appropriate)toretaintherightsthatarenecessarytoprovideOpenAccessandenable
adequatepreservationofscientificoutputs

Recommendation 7:Enableasharedunderstandingacrossallstakeholders(researchers,
institutions,funders,librariesandpublishers)ofthelegalterminologyandconcepts
involved

Recommendation 8: Build upon the investment in OpenAIRE by further enabling
coordinateddevelopmentsthatjoinupemerginginfrastructurestomaximumeffect

Recommendation 9:ProvideEuropean-levelguidanceandleadershiptoMSonthe
principleofthelong-termnecessityandbenefitofaccesstoandpreservationofscientific
information

Recommendation 10:Examinethelong-termprospectsfortheinfrastructuralbasis
forOpenAccesssofardevelopedinEurope.Assessthisinthecontextofcreatinga
coordinated,viable,sustainablesystemthatwillenablethecreationoftheInnovation
Unionoverthenext15years

10

1.1 The background to the Workshop

TheWorkshopwasconvenedtoexplorethestateofplayandprogresswithinMember
States(MS)withrespecttoOpenAccessto,andpreservationof,scientificresearch
outputs.BothhavebeenontheCommission’sagendaforsomeyears,beginningwiththe
studyintoscientificpublishingcarriedoutonbehalfoftheCommissionandpublishedin
2006(seebelowformoredetail).

Thetwothings–OpenAccessandpreservation–areseparatebutrelatedissues.Open
Accessisaboutfree-of-chargeaccessibilityofoutputs(researchtextsanddata)without
delayassoonastheyarereadyforpublication:preservationconcernsensuringthelong-
termstorage,careandcontinuingfreeaccessibilityoftheseoutputs.Thepresentpolicy
situationonthesetwothings,bothatEuropeanandatMemberStatelevel,hasarisenout
ofanumberofinitiativesandsteps,somecoordinatedandsomenot,sincethebeginning
ofthemillennium.ThiscontextislaidoutmorefullyinAppendix1.

1.2 Aims and objectives

Thehigh-levelaimsoftheWorkshopwere:

• togetanunderstandingofMemberStates’implementationofthe2007Council
Conclusionsonscientificinformationinthedigitalage
• toshareexperiencesandknow-howregardingsuccessfulimplementationsand
bestpractices
• tocreateacommonvisionofwhatcanbedonenextintermsofpolicyandaction
atMemberStateandatEuropeanlevels
• tosustainMemberStateinvolvementandcommitment
• toidentifyareasinwhichEuropean-level(EC-level)actionmakessenseandwould
bewelcome.

TheCommissionwouldliketodevelopconcrete policy recommendationsonhowtomove
forwardatMemberStateandEuropeanlevelonaccessandpreservationissuesandthe
Workshopwasconvenedtoinformthedevelopmentofthatpolicy.

1.3 Representation at the Workshop

Representationwasasbelow.

i)ExpertsfromMemberStates:
Austria,Belgium,CzechRepublic,Denmark,Estonia,France,Germany,Greece,Iceland,
Ireland,Italy,Latvia,Lithuania,Netherlands,Poland,Portugal,Slovakia,Slovenia,Spain,
Sweden,UnitedKingdom

ii)TheEuropeanCommission
• Jean-MichelBaer
• Jean-FrançoisDechamp

SECTION ONE: THE WORKSHOP 11

• FrancescoFusaro
• GillesLaroche
• MatthieuKleinschmager
• Alexis-MichelMugabushaka
• TheodorePapazoglou
• JuanPelegrin
• CarlosMoraisPires
• CelinaRamjoué
• LorenzaSaracco
• JarkkoSiren
• EcaterinaStamate

iii)Rapporteur:Alma Swan,EnablingOpenScholarshipandKeyPerspectivesLtd

1.4 Format of the Workshop

TheWorkshopemployedavarietyoftechniquestoensuredelegateparticipation.These
fellunderanoverallapproachcalledtheArt of Hosting and Convening Meaningful
Conversations(www.artofhosting.org).Thespecifictechniquesemployedatthisevent
aredescribedinAppendix2.

1.5 Why national experts attended the Workshop

TherewerefivemainreasonsgivenbythenationalexpertsforattendingtheWorkshop.
Theywere:

• TolearnaboutdevelopingpoliciesonOpenAccessandPreservation,andhowto
implementthem
• ToshareexperiencesoftryingtopromoteOpenAccess,includingonpolicy
developmentandimplementation
• ToexplorethepossibilityofcollaboratingwithotherstoachieveOpenAccess
• ToobtaininformationthatwillhelptoguideOpenAccessdevelopmentintheir
homestate
• ToencourageandhelpguideactionatEuropeanlevel

Thereweresomeother,lesscommonreasonsgiven,suchasbeinginterestedinOpen
Data, exploring business models for Open Access, and developing infrastructures
forpreservation.Ingeneral,though,participantshadcometolearnfromandshare
experiencesandwiththehopethattheeventmighthelpcatalysepartnershipand
networkingactivitiesandmovedevelopmentsalongatEuropeanlevel.

12

1.6 he overall vision: why Open Access and preservation
T
are important

ThroughWorldCaféconversationsthenationalexpertsgavetheirpersonalviewsasto
whyOpenAccessandPreservationofscientificinformationareimportant.Thereasons
werecollectedattheendofthesessionandrelatedreasonsweregroupedtogether.
Overall,theyfellintotwocategories.

First,therewerethehigh-level,principle-basedreasons:

• Themoralargument,whichisthattheresultsofpublicly-fundedresearchshould
bepubliclyavailable
• OpenAccessenablesresearchfindingstobesharedwiththewiderpublic,helping
tocreateaknowledgesocietyacrossEuropecomposedofbetter-informedcitizens
• OpenAccessenhancesknowledgetransfertosectorsthatcandirectlyusethat
knowledgetoproducebettergoodsandservices.Manyconstituenciesoutsidethe
researchcommunityitselfcanmakeuseofresearchresults.Theseincludesmall
andmedium-sizedcompaniesthatdonothaveaccesstotheresearchthrough
companylibraries,organisationsofprofessional(legalpractices,familydoctor
practices,etc),theeducationsectorandsoforth

Secondthereweremoreprosaic,practice-focusedreasons:

• OpenAccessimprovesresearchefficiencybyobviatingtheneedforresearchersto
spendtimeseekingwaysofaccessinginformation,gettingpermissiontousethat
information,findingoutwhatpermissionsforre-useexistandsoon.Theyalso
finditeasiertoavoidduplicationofpreviousworkifitissimpletofindoutwhat
previousworkhasbeendone,andeasiertoavoidblindalleysifpreviousworkhas
shownthemtoexist.Allofthisismadepossiblebyhavingfreeandeasyaccess
tothewholeliteratureratherthantojustthesubsetofitavailablethroughthe
subscriptionspurchasedbyanyoneuniversitylibrary
• Re-useofresearchoutputsisimprovedbyOpenAccess(whosedefinitionincludes
there-useofresearchoutputswithoutrestrictionsimposedbyconventional
copyrightpractice).OpenAccessarticlescanbeharvestedbymachinesintonew,
usefulcollections,canbeminedformeaningorfactsbytext-miningcomputer
technologieswhichthencreatenewknowledge,andcanbeusedforteachingand
alliedpurposeswhichnormallyfallfoulofcopyrightrestrictions
• OpenAccessenablesbetterresearchmonitoringandevaluation.Insteadofa
systemwhereonlyaproportionofjournalsaretrackedforcitationstothepapers
theypublish,andaresearcher’sworthismeasuredbythe‘quality’ofthejournalin
whichtheypublish,OpenAccessenablescitationsandothermeasuresofimpact
fromacrossthewholeresearchliteraturetobetrackedtotheindividualarticleor
researcherratherthanthejournal.Eachinstitution’sOpenAccessrepository(digital
collectionofresearchoutputs)alsoenablesresearchmanagersatthatinstitution
toassessandstudyresearchprogresslocallyandcomparethattocompetitor
institutions
• ThedevelopmentoftechnologiestolinkOpenAccessrepositoriesandCurrent
ResearchInformationSystems(CRIS)inresearchinstitutionsbuildsuponthe


advantagesmentionedinthepreviouspoint.Untilnow,institutionalmanagers
havenotbeenabletosayhowmanypapershavebeenpublishedfromtheir
institution,wheretheyhavebeenpublished,whoauthoredthem,whatprojects
thoseauthorsworkedon,whatresearchgrantsthoseprojectshavebenefitedfrom,
whatequipmenthasbeenpurchasedfromthosegrants,andsoon.Nowallthis
informationcanbecollected,collatedandlinkedupinmeaningfulwaystoproduce
acompletemanagementinformationsystemforanyresearch-basedinstitution
• PreservationofresearchoutputsensuresthattheculturalheritageofEuropeis
protectedandcuratedforfuturegenerations;thatscientificoutputsarekeptin
formatsthatensuretheyarepermanentlyusableandaccessible

1.7 Progress in the Member States

National experts reported on developments in Member States since the Council
Conclusionswereissuedlatein2007.TheydidthisbyworkinginWorldCaféformat.
Onepersondescribedtheirexperienceswhiletheothersatthetablelistened,helpedthe
speakertobringoutthekeyissuesofthatexperience,andrecordedthemonpaper.Each
delegateinturndescribedtheirexperiencesinthisway.Thekeyissueswererecorded
finallyonsmallpiecesofpaperandthenationalexpertsarrangedtheseintogroupsof
relatedissuesunderthefourmainheadingquestions,whichwere:

• WhataretheOpenAccess-relatedexperiencesofyourMemberState?
• Whatproblemsorbottleneckswereencountered?
• Whatwerethekeysuccessfactorsinovercomingthesebottlenecksandproblems?
• Whatweretheresults,impactsandbenefits?

1.7.1. Open Access-related experiences of Member States

SomeMShavemadeconsiderableprogressonOpenAccess,whileothersareslowerto
initiatedevelopments.Thedevelopmentsthatwerereportedwere:

1.7.1.1. At institutional level: there have been projects instigated on Open Access
in individual universities, progress on the development of CRIS (Current Research
Information Systems; see section 2.4, penultimate bullet point), and some progress on
policydiscussion.

1.7.1.2. At national level: theargumentforOpenAccesshassuccessfullybeentakento
governmentlevelinsomeMSandinsomecaseshavebeenincorporatedintonational
strategyforscienceandresearch.OpenDatapolicyhasalsobeenimplementedinone
case. At infrastructural level, national archives for Open Access content have been set
up (for example, the national Open Access repository for theses in Greece), a national
CRIShascollected10%ofpublicationsinDenmark,andanationalOpenDatarepository
and a national portal for Open Access journals has been established. The most far-
reaching development has occurred in Portugal, with the establishment of the RCAAP
(RepositórioCientíficodeAcessoAbertodePortugal)whichharvestsOpenAccesscontent
fromPortugueseuniversityrepositoriesandpresentsthemthroughanationalinterface.
This is paralleled at disciplinary level by UKPMC (UK PubMed Central) which collects

14

biomedicalresearchoutputsfromUKinstitutionsandpresentsthemthroughanOpen
Accessportal.

1.7.2. Problems or bottlenecks encountered

TwomainbottlenecksthatwerementionedbymanyMSrepresentatives–lackof
awarenessaboutOpenAccessonthepartofresearchersandpolicymakers,andlackof
policy.LackoffinancialsupportwasalsoraisedasabarriertoachievingOpenAccessand
properprovisionforpreservationofresearchfindings.Someotherissueswerealsoraised
andallarereportedbelow.

1.7.2.1. Lack of awareness and understanding amongst researchers: This is not
confined to European researchers. Surveys have repeatedly shown that researchers are
still not properly aware of the concept and that, even if they have some knowledge of
OpenAccess,thereisusuallysomelackofunderstandingoftheissues.Inparticular,the
issuesofqualitycontrol,theroleofrepositoriesandthematterofcopyrightareespecially
prominentasfactorsaboutwhichresearchersareconfusedanduninformed(seebelow
for more on these bottlenecks). Some researchers even appear to be resistant to the
ideaofopennessitself,thoughthisresistanceismoreusuallyapplicabletoresearchdata
thantoresearchpublications.TheresultisdemonstrableresistancetotheideaofOpen
Access,misunderstandingsandbaselessprejudiceagainstitwithinpartsoftheresearch
community.

1.7.2.2. Lack of awareness and understanding amongst policymakers: Policymakers
are, with notable exceptions, even more unaware than researchers about Open Access
and can often be uninformed about the issues around scientific communication in
general.Lackofawarenessandunderstandingisattherootofthegenerallackofpolicy
developmentatMSlevel(andatinstitutionallevel).Nationalexpertsreporteddifficulty
ingettinginterestandattentionfrompolicymakersonOpenAccessandrelatedissues.

1.7.2.3. Lack of policy: Some MS do have high-level policies on Open Access and
preservation.TheNetherlands,forexample,hasasysteminplacenationallyforpreserving
researchoutputsinthecustodianshipoftheRoyalLibrary(KB).MostMSdonothavesucha
system,thoughinsomecasesitisindevelopment(forexample,theBritishLibraryisworking
onanambitiousplanforpreservationofthenation’sscientificandculturalheritage).

Thereisapolicythatcovers20%ofFrameworkProgramme7(FP7)-fundedresearch
outputsandsomeMShavepoliciesinplaceatnationalresearchfunderlevel(some
examplesare:theAustrianResearchCouncil,theSwedishResearchCouncil,theseven
UKResearchCouncils),andthereisanOpenAccesspolicyfromtheEuropeanResearch
Council.Inthemain,though,thereislittleinthewayofpolicydevelopmentatMSlevel,
andnotmuchmoreatinstitutionallevel1.ThisisahindrancetotheadvanceofOpen
Accessbecausepoliciesservenotonlytosupportanimplementationprogramme,butalso
toinformresearchersaboutOpenAccess.Theyareexcellentadvocacytools.

1 S
eelistofextantpoliciesatROARMAP(RegistryofOpenAccessRepositoryMaterialArchivingPolicies)
http://www.eprints.org/openaccess/policysignup/


1.7.2.4. Copyright: Researchers who are not properly informed about Open Access
believe (erroneously) they will be infringing copyright if they self-archive their work
in repositories and do not believe that Open Access is compatible at all with scientific
publishing.NationalexpertsfromsomeMS(forexample,Germany)reportedthattheir
ownnationalcopyrightlawsdonotpermitOpenAccessbyself-archiving.

1.7.2.5. Financial cost of implementation: Therewasagreementamongstanumberof
participantsreportedthatthecostofimplementingOpenAccessandgoodpreservation
practicesintheirMSwasinhibitingtheadvanceofthesethings.

1.7.2.6. Quality control: Manyresearchers–andsomepolicymakers–whoarenotproperly
informedbelievethatOpenAccessisaboutpublishingmaterialwithoutpeerreview.Thisis
anerroneousbelief(asOpenAccessjournalsimplementpeerreviewasdotheirsubscription
counterparts,andrepositoriescollecttheauthor’sfinalversionofarticles,afterpeer-review)
butitremainsquiteprevalent.AuthorsthereforefrequentlyandincorrectlybelievethatOpen
Accesscontentequateswithlowerstatusthancontentpublishedinthe‘traditional’way.

1.7.3. The key success factors in overcoming these bottlenecks
and problems

Byfarthemost-mentionedkeysuccessfactorwasgettingapolicyonOpenAccessinplace.
Itforceschangeinawaythatadvocacyandexampledonot.Yetadvocacyhasitsplace,and
engagementofkeystakeholdersthroughadvocacyhasprovedtobeaveryeffectiveroute
toresearcherinvolvementandpolicymakingprogress,especiallywheretheexistingculture
andpracticescanbeusedtosupportOpenAccess.Othersuccessfactorsreportedwere
infrastructuraldevelopments,securingappropriatefundingandcollaborativeapproaches.

1.7.3.1. Open Access policies

ExpertsfromMSwherenational-levelorinstitutional-levelpolicieshavebeenadopted
reportedthattheyaresuccessfulinincreasingtheamountofmaterialopenlyavailableand
inraisingawarenessofOpenAccessamongstauthors.Policiesusuallyexplainthecasefor
OpenAccessandaresupportedbyclearguidancetoresearchersonhowtoprovideOpen
Accesstotheirwork.

1.7.3.2. Advocacy and cultural change work

Expertsreportedthatinvolvingkeystakeholders(authors,institutionalmanagers,national
researchpolicymakers)hasbeencriticallyimportantinadvancingOpenAccess.Successful
advocacyhasincludededucationandinformationcampaigns,usingbibliometricindicators
tomakethecaseforOpenAccess,promotingthevisibilityandusabilityofOpenAccess
materialandexplainingthereach(andsubsequentimpact)itcanhaveoutsideofthe
‘normal’researchcommunityaudience.

16

1.7.3.3. Infrastructural aspects of implementation

Well-designedinfrastructuraldevelopmentscanenhanceOpenAccess.Somenational
expertsreportedthatintegratingrepositoriesonlocalandnationalbaseshadhelped
OpenAccessintheirMS.Portugalisagoodexampleofthis,withthebuildingofanational
harvestertriggeringactivityinabottom-upfashionatinstitutionalrepositorylevel.

1.7.3.4. Funding

FundingearmarkedforOpenAccessandpreservationdevelopmentscanbeimportant.
Bothinfrastructureandadvocacyrequiresomefinancialsupport.

1.7.3.5. Collaborative approaches

ThepartnershipcreatedbytheFP7projectOpenAIREwasmentionedasacontributory
factorinenhancingOpenAccessinonedelegate’scase.

1.7.4. The results, impacts and benefits

Theresults,impactsandbenefitsreportedbynationalexpertsfellintofourmaincategories
–policydevelopment,culturechange,establishmentofinfrastructureandtheamassingof
acorpusofOpenAccesscontent.Itwasnotable,however,thatfarfewernationalexperts
reportedanythinginthissessionthanforthebottlenecksandkeysuccessfactors.

1.7.4.1. Policy development

TwonationalexpertsreportednationalpoliciesonOpenAccessforthesesandone
reportedthesuccessfulcoordinationofOpenAccesspolicieswithintheircountry.

1.7.4.2. Culture change

Examplesofculturechangegivenwere:instigatinganOpenAccessawarenesscourse,
determiningthroughastudythat55%ofjournalarticlespublishedbyDanishresearchers
arepublishedin‘Green’journals(thatis,thepublisherallowsthemtobearchivedinOpen
Accessrepositories);andachievingsomesuccessinchangingthebehaviourandattitudes
ofresearcherstowardsOpenAccess.

1.7.4.3. Infrastructure

Infrastructuredevelopmentswereaboutestablishingnationalrepositorysystems,
includingthenationalharvestingrepositoriesinIrelandandPortugal.


1.8 Suggestions for concrete actions

TheseconddayoftheWorkshopbeganwithaProActionCafésessiontoreflectupon
whathadhappenedthusfarandforindividualstoidentifyparticulartopicsthatthey
consideredworthyofexploringtopromoteOpenAccessandpreservationinEurope.Eight
topicswereoffered:

• Preservationofscientificinformationandexperimentaldata
• HowOpenAccesscanmakeknowledgemoreconnectedandaccessible
• Publisherrelationsandnegotiations
• MeasuringOpenAccessoutputsandcreatingevidenceofthebenefitsofOpen
Access
• NationalpoliciesonOpenAccess
• Makingrepositoriesuser/researcher-friendly
• Openaccessimpactindicatorsasareplacementforexistingresearchbibliometric
systems
• LinkingEuropeanandnationallevels

ParticipantsusedtheWorldCaféformattodiscussthesetopics.Topicleadersremained
atatableandthreeotherpeoplejoinedthediscussionforaperiod,movingontoother
tablesattheendofeachperiod.Thetopicleadermadenotesofthekeyinsightsarising
inthesediscussionsandproducedashortoverviewdetailingthemainpointsthatarose,
whichtheypresentedtothewholegroup.Asummaryofthesemainpointsforeach
topicfollows:

1.8.1. Preservation of scientific information and experimental data

Technicalbottlenecksshouldnotbeallowedtohinderpreservationandpreservation
solutionsshouldbebasedonopensourcesoftware

• Optimalpreservationsolutionswillvaryaccordingtoresearchdiscipline
• ThereneedstobeaEuropeandimension(EuropeanStorageInfrastructure)tolink
nationalrepositoryinfrastructures
• AFederationofPreservationshouldbeestablishedonaEuropeanscaletoenable
nationalarchivestoworktogetherincommonaim,withmirrorsitesestablishedto
ensuresafecustodyofdata

Box 1:

Next steps on preservation of scientific information and experimental data
include:
• S
ettingupworkingpartieswithresearchersandusersofexperimentaldata
indifferentdisciplinestodefinestandards
• E
xplorationoftheissuesinvolvedinmigrationofdataovertimefromone
formattoanother
• D
evelopmentofguidelinesonwhatdatatopreserves,forhowlong,where
andhow

18

1.8.2. How Open Access can make knowledge more connected and
accessible

Therearebothculturalandscientific/technicalissuesatstakehere.Culturalaspects
includelegalpracticeandincentivesforbothauthorsandpublisherstochangetheirown
practicesandnormstoembraceOpenAccess.Scientific/technicalissuesincludemetadata
standards,technologiesforextractionandautomaticcreationofmetadata,bettersearch
capabilities(using,forexample,naturallanguagequerying),andtheestablishmentof
infrastructureforrepresentingandpreservinglargevolumesofresearchdata.

Box 2:

Next steps on how Open Access can make knowledge more connected and
accessible:
• DevelopincentivesforresearcherstomaketheirworkOpenAccess
• Investigatestandardsforgood,cleanmetadata(includinglinkingtoother

datasets)
• Clarifylegalissuesrelatedtolinking,sharingandre-usingOpenAccess

content
• Educateallconstituenciesaboutthenewparadigmsofresearch

communication

1.8.3. Publisher relations and negotiations

Thereshouldbetransparencyoverpricenegotiationswithpublishers,withinformation
postedontheWeb.Thediscussionconcludedthatsomepublishersareinnovativeand
forward-looking,andthesecouldbenurturedandencouragedandpromotedwherever
possible.Alternative,viableandsustainablepublishingbusinessmodelsthatallowOpen
Accesscanbedeveloped,andtheseshouldbeexplored,especiallywithlearnedsocieties.
TherewasasuggestionforacommonEuropeanapproachinnegotiatingwithpublishers.

Box 3:

Next steps on publisher relations and negotiations include:
• Creatingawebsitedocumentingthestateofplayforeachpublisherwith

respecttoOpenAccess.Thisneedstobekeptuptodate
• Astudyshouldcollectinformationonnewbusinessmodelsforpublishers

• TheCommissionshouldorganiseaworkshoponrelationsanddealingswith

publishers
• T
hereshouldbenationalandEuropean-levelprojectsinassociationwith
innovativepublishersinordertopromotethesepublishersandtheirwork
• W
orkshouldbeginwithlearnedsocietypublishers
• D
GCompetitionshouldexaminewhethertheacademicpublishingindustry
isactuallyamonopolysituation
• A
lobbyisneededtopromoteOpenAccess
• A
commonEuropeanapproachisneededinnegotiationswithpublishers,
ratherthanthefragmentedinstitutionalornationalapproachesofthepresent


1.8.4. Measuring Open Access outputs and collecting evidence of the
benefits of Open Access

Thetraditionalacademicmeasureofimpacthasbeenthecitationofapieceofwork,but
therearemanyusersofresearchthatdon’tciteit,suchasprofessionals,practitioners
andbusinessusers.New,additionalmetricsareneededtomeasureandreflectthebigger
worthandutilityofresearch.Measuresthatcouldbeimportantare:

For researchers:mediacoverageandusagemetrics
For institutions:economicefficienciesofOpenAccess,usagemetrics,mediacoverage,
enhancementofinterdisciplinaryresearchbyOpenAccess
For governments and national research funders: usage metrics, media coverage,
compliancewithpolicies,enhancementofinterdisciplinaryresearchbyOpenAccess,cost
percitation,costperuse
For society at large:publicsurveys,citizeneducation,qualityofmediareporting

Box 4:

Next steps on Measuring Open Access outputs and creating evidence of the
benefits of Open Access include:
• E
xplorationofthescopeofindicatorsthatcouldbeusefultodifferent
constituencies
• S
copingstudytoprovideanoutlineofwhatworkisnecessarytodevelop
them

1.8.5. National policies on Open Access

Therewasnoagreeddecisionaboutwhethernationalpoliciesareneededornot.Some
peoplearguedthatabottom-upapproachismosteffective,butothersholdthata
nationalpolicyisessentialsothatatop-downinfluencehelpsthebottom-upinitiatives.

Theadvantageofanationalapproachisthatnationalauthoritiesareusuallyneededfor
involvementwithlegalissues,copyrightandinnegotiationswithpublishers.Withrespect
topreservation,anational-levelapproachishighlydesirabletopreserveculturalheritage
andtoputinplacepropersystemsforpreservingscientificresearchmaterialinthelong
term.

Box 5:

Next steps on National policies on Open Access include:
• C
onsiderationofwhethertheCommissionshouldissueguidelineson
developmentofnationalpolicies:thesewouldcoverbestpractice,practical
issues,samplecontracts

20

1.8.6. Making repositories user/researcher-friendly

Atissueisthefactthatmostrepositoriesarehalf-emptyandoftenhavepoorquality
metadata.NationalCRISsarebeingbuiltwithOAIcompliance,whichshouldaddvalueto
thesesystems.

Box 6:

Next steps on making repositories user/researcher-friendly include:
• CreateamoreefficientbusinessmodelforlinkingrepositoriesandCRISs

Europe-wide
• Setstandardsonplatformsandinteroperability,withtheneedfor

researcherstodeposittheirarticlesonlyonce

1.8.7. Open Access impact indicators as a replacement for existing
research bibliometric systems

The most-used bibliometric indicator systems (e.g. Web of Science, Scopus) are
commercial,paid-forservicesthatarenotavailabletoallandwhichcreatedataonly
foraproportionoftheworld’sresearchliterature.Newcitationservicesworkingon
OpenAccesscontentwouldencourageresearcherstomaketheirworkOpenAccessand
convinceadministratorsthatOpenAccesscanbeusefulinresearchassessmentand
monitoring.

Box 7:

Next steps on Open Access impact indicators as a replacement for existing
research bibliometric systems include:
• Lookatthetechnicalchallengesthissuggestionpresents
• Explorethepossibilityofdigitalobjectidentifiers(DOIs)beingusedforall

digitalobjects,includingdatasetsandcomponentsofcomplexobjects


1.8.8. Linking European and national levels

TherearedefinedrelationshipsbetweentheCommission,theCouncilandMS,including
possibleresponsesofMStoCommissionguidelines.DoMSneedguidanceonOpenAccess
andpreservation?AttheleastthereisaneedtochangethinkingatMSlevel.

Box 8:

Next steps on linking European and national levels include:
• T
heCommissioncouldcoordinate,guideandname-and-shameinorderto
createacommonunderstandinganddriveprogress
• T
heCommissionshoulddevelopaformalOpenAccessplan
• O
napracticallevel,theCommissionshouldimposeOpenAccessasa
criterionforFPproposals

1.9 Priorities for the recommended actions

ThefinalsessionoftheWorkshopfocusedononequestion:What elements should be
part of an action plan for Open Access and preservation in Europe?Thenationalexperts
suggestedactionareasandthesewerecollectedonamindmap.

Nationalexpertswerethengivenfivevotestocastfortheactionareastheyconsideredof
greatestpriority.TheoutcomeisshowninTable1.

22

Table 1: Assignment of priority by national experts for action points
developed in discussion
Votes cast
Action point
in favour
DevelopmentofstandardsforallaspectsofOpenAccess 13
Fundingforinfrastructuraldevelopments 12
CreationofnewmetricsforOpenAccesscontent(usagemeasures,successstories, 9
mediaimpact,citationimpact,etc)
Makingthe‘Green’routetoopenAccess(throughrepositories)mandatory 8
Exploration of copyright laws in EU states with a view to recommending 8
modificationorcreatinganewlawonacademicresearchoutputs(whicharenot
thesameasmusicandothercreativeoutputs)tosupportorpermitOpenAccess
Revisitagreementswithpublisherstoachievepricetransparency,re-negotiateBig 8
Dealsandimprovetheproportionofpublishersthatallow‘Green’self-archivingin
repositories
Investmentine-researchinfrastructuresinEurope,especiallythosethatsupportthe 8
developmentoftheOpenDataagenda
InvestmoreeffortindevelopmentoftechnologiesandenablersofOpenData 6
Supportforcoordinationactivitiestosupportadvocacyandothersupporting 5
actionsforOpenAccess
InvestigationofnewbusinessmodelsapplicabletoOpenAccess(includingusing 5
opensourcetechnologiesandafocusonaddingvalue)
Supportfurtherawareness-raisingactivities 5
Developmentofpoliciesatgovernment,funder,andinstitutionallevelacrossEurope 4
Developtechnicalinfrastructuretosupportpreservationofresearchoutputs 3
Developmentofincentivesforauthorsandpublisherstoincreasetheamountof 2
OpenAccesscontent
DevelopmentofindicatorstodemonstratethebenefitsofOpenAccess 1
Identificationofexistinginitiativesandbuildinguponthem 1
Fundworkondataandmetadatacurationforthelong-term 1
DevelopmentoftoolstosupportdepositandcurationofcontentinOpenAccess 0
collections
Encouragesharingofgoodpractices 0

Section TWO:
Discussion of the outcomes

24

ThissectiondiscussestherecommendedactionpointsoftheWorkshopinthecontext
ofwhatalreadyexistsorisbeingdeveloped,andisdevelopedherebytheRapporteurfor
theWorkshop.TheactionpointsrecommendedbytheWorkshopnationalexpertsare
groupedunderaseriesofheadingsbelowfordiscussion.Todrawthingstogether,the
actionpointshavebeengroupedinawaythatalignswiththeKey Success Factors (see
Section1.7.3)thatweredistilledfromthefirstdayoftheWorkshopproceedings(these
were:OApolicies,advocacyandculturalchange,infrastructure,fundingandcollaborative
approaches).Theactionpointheadingswere:

• Stakeholderengagement/involvement(advocacy)
• Top-levelengagementandsupport(policydevelopment)
• Collaborationsandpartnerships(coordination)
• Implementationandmanifestations(infrastructure)

Itisunsurprisingthatthedevelopmentofpoliciesandstakeholderengagementappeared
astwokeyissuesfromdiscussionsonthefirstdayoftheWorkshop.Worldwide,these
twoissuesarealsoattheforefrontofOpenAccessadvancesandEuropeannationswould
notbeexpectedtobeanydifferent.Therearenearing200mandatoryOpenAccess
policiescoveringjournalarticlesandconferencepapersaroundtheworld,andafurther
70+coveringmaster’sanddoctoraltheses.EUmemberStatesaccountforthegreater
proportionofthesepolicies,anditiscorrecttosaythatEUnationshaveledtheway
inthisrespect,forbothfunderandinstitutionalmandates.PoliciesfromtheEuropean
CommissionandtheEuropeanResearchCouncilhavehelpedraiseawarenessingeneral,
thoughmonitoringandfollow-upofthesepolicieshavestilltotakeplacesothattheir
impactcanbeassessed.

ThisrelativelyhighlevelofpolicydevelopmentdoesnotmeanthatOpenAccessis
achievedintheEuropeanUnion,though.AstheWorkshopitself,theresponsetothe
CRESTsurvey,andinformalmonitoringbyOpenAccesscommunityplayershaveshown,
thereisstillmuchtodo.TheproportionofglobalresearchoutputsthataremadeOpen
Accesshoversnowaround20%(Björket al,2010),uponly5%inthelastfiveyears.Possibly,
theEuropeanUnionfigureishigherthanthisglobalaverage(ithasneverbeenmeasured),
thoughitisextremelyunlikelytobemorethan25-35%.Mandatorypoliciesdosucceedin
raisingthepercentagewell,achievingover50%insomecases(forexample,Universityof
Minho,thefirstEuropeanUnionuniversitywithamandatoryOpenAccesspolicy,andthe
London-basedWellcomeTrust,thefirstresearchfunderwithamandatorypolicy).

Stakeholderengagementisanessentialpartofpolicydevelopment,ofcourse,and
gettingtheattentionofpolicymakershasbeensuccessfullyachievedin,now,hundreds
ofcases.ButtherearethousandsofuniversitiesandresearchinstitutesintheEU,and
manyhundredsofresearchfundingagenciesthathavenotsofarengagedwiththe
issueofOpenAccess.TheEuropeanUniversityAssociation’sRecommendationsonOpen
Access(2009)tooktheissuetonearly800research-baseduniversitiesacrossEurope.
Nonetheless,policieswerenotforthcomingasaresult.Attheinstitutionallevel,aswell
asatfunderlevel,moreneedstobedone.

Ininfrastructuralterms,theEUisdoingwell.Severalcountrieshavecreatedcoherent
nationalnetworkedrepositoryinfrastructures,sometimeswithanational‘shopwindow’

SECTION TWO: DISCUSSION OF THE OUTCOMES 25

frontingthem.Infrastructurecanmeansofterthingstoo,though.Forexample,The
Netherlandshasestablishedanationalauthoridentifierschemesothateveryresearcher
inDutchuniversitiesnowhasauniqueidentity,enablinghisorherworkandoutputstobe
discriminatedfromthatofotherswhomightbearthesamename2.Thisisanimportant
stepforwardincreatingareallyworkable,usableresearchenvironmentforthedigital
age.Thedevelopmentofatechnologythatallowsdepositintomultiplerepositorieswith
asingleinputhasbeendevelopedintheUK3andthiseasestheproblemforauthorswish,
orarerequiredasaresultofbeingundermorethanonemandatorypolicy,todeposittheir
papersinmultiplecollections.Theyneedonlydepositinoneplaceandtheitemisthen
copiedintootherlocationsbymachineprocesses.

TherearemanyotherexampleswhereEuropeandevelopmentsareleadingthewayfor
OpenAccessbutatthesametimethegoalofhavingallEuropeanoutputsfrompublicly-
fundedresearchremainselusive.TheWorkshopwentontodebateanddiscusswhat
concreteactionstheCommissionmighttaketofurtherthisaim.

2.1 Stakeholder engagement / involvement (advocacy)

Theactionpointsfallingunderthisheadingare:

• CreationofnewmetricsforOpenAccesscontent(usagemeasures,successstories,
mediaimpact,citationimpact,etc)
• DevelopmentofindicatorstodemonstratethebenefitsofOpenAccess
• Supportfurtherawareness-raisingactivities
• Developmentofincentivesforauthorsandpublisherstoincreasetheamountof
OpenAccesscontent
• Encouragesharingofgoodpractices

Research metrics

Somedevelopmentsontheissueofmetrics–whichthemselvesactasanincentivefor
authorsandpublisherstoembraceOpenAccess–arealreadyunderway.Thedevelopment
ofnewresearchmetricsisthesubjectofacurrentFP7Callandthereisaprojectinprocess
atthemomentintheUSandCanadatodevelopnewmetricsthatapplytoOpenAccess
monographsandoneoncitationanalysis.Inaddition,someplayersare,individually,
introducingnewimpactmeasuresthathelptoincentiviseauthorsandreaders.One
exampleisPLoSONE,publishedbythePublicLibraryofScience,whichhasintroduceda
rangeofarticle-levelmetricsthatgiveauthorsfarmoreinformationabouthowtheirwork
isbeingusedthanisprovidedbyanysubscription-basedjournal.

Aconsiderablenumberofprojectsandserviceshaveorarebeingplannedtoprovideways
ofassessingresearchthroughuseoftheOpenAccesscorpusinrepositories(seeBox9

2
h
ttp://www.surffoundation.nl/en/themas/openonderzoek/infrastructuur/Pages/
digitalauthoridentifierdai.aspx
3
S
WORD(SimpleWeb-serviceOfferingRepositoryDeposit)http://swordapp.org/

26

below)andnewmetricsforassessingtheperformanceofrepositorieshavealsobeen
proposed(Cassella,2010).

Box 9:

Resources on research metrics
Overviewsofresearchmetricsdevelopedsofar:
• OpenAccessScholarlyInformationSourcebook:Researchmetrics

• Newmetricsforresearchoutputs:overviewofthemainissues.(2008)

• U
sagereportingandmetrics:listofexistinginitiatives,studies,projects
anddevelopments(fromtheInternationalRepositoryInfrastructuresProject)
• P
restigeandprofilingmetrics:listofresearchandresearchprofilingand
assessmentservices(fromtheInternationalRepositoryInfrastructuresProject)

Indicators of Open Access benefits

BenefitsfromOpenAccessaccruepotentiallytoanumberofstakeholders.Theresearch
communityistheobviousone,butoutsidethisaretheprofessionalandpractitioner
communitieswhoseworkisalsodependentupontheoutcomesoftheresearchcarried
outinpublicly-fundeduniversitiesandresearchinstitutes.Thesecondaryandtertiary
educationcommunities,sciencemediaandmembersofthepublicatlarge(‘othercurious
minds’,astheBudapestOpenAccessInitiativeputit 4)arealsopotentialbeneficiaries.In
all,accesstotheknowledgethatisbeingcreatedusingpublicmoneycanhelptocreatea
well-informedpopulaceandbuildtheKnowledgeSociety.

EarlyworktodemonstratethebenefitsofOpenAccessoutsideoftheresearchcommunity
isgoingoninthisarea.Twostudieshavelookedatlevelsofaccesstoresearchinformation
forSMEs(Ware,2009;Swan,2008)andfoundthemlessthansatisfactory:atleasttwo
furtherstudiesarecurrentlyunderwayonthebenefitofaccesstoresearchoutputsfor
SMEsandthesewillreportinthefirsthalfof2011.

MeasurementofbenefitsfromOpenAccesstootherstakeholdercommunitiesisvery
importantbutisnotyetbeingcarriedout.Norhaveanygoodindicatorsofbenefittoany
stakeholdergroupyetbeendeveloped.Thefirststepistoachieveabetterunderstanding
oftherelevanceandpotentialbenefitofaccesstoresearchoutputsbythedifferent
stakeholdercommunities;thesecondstepistodevelopappropriateindicators(asmanyas
possible),acknowledgingthatsomeofthesemaybemeasuringverylong-termoutcomes.

Open Access advocacy

AlthoughmucheffortcontinuestogointoOpenAccessadvocacyworkaroundtheworld,
itisstillthecasethatresearchersandpolicymakersremainlargelyunawareoftheconcept
and,eveniftheyclaimtobeaware,theydemonstratehighlevelsofignoranceand

4
http://www.soros.org/openaccess/read.shtml


misunderstanding5.Someofthismaybeduetoincorrectinformationeitherinnocentlyor
wilfullyprovidedtothem,butmostlyitisbecauseproperOAadvocacyeffortshavenot
yetreachedtheirtargetcommunitieseffectively.Evenwhereaparticularcommunityhas
receivedhigh-profileinformationandguidanceontheissue,awarenessremainswoefully
low(Bardynet al,2010).

ThisissuewashighlightedduringtheWorkshopandisencapsulatedintwooftheaction
pointsattheheadofthissection.OneofthevaluableoutcomesoftheWorkshopwasthe
opportunityfornationalexpertstosharetheirexperiencesofadvocacyandrelatewhat
hasworkedwellandwhatnotsowell,identifyingtheproblemsanddiscussingwaysto
overcomethem.Furthereventsandinitiativeswouldofferthechancetostimulatedeeper
integrationbetweenMSwithrespecttoadvocacyactivities.

2.2 Top-level engagement and support (policy development)


• Makingthe‘Green’routetoOpenAccess(throughrepositories)mandatory
• Developmentofpoliciesatgovernment,funder,andinstitutionallevelacross
Europe
• ExplorationofcopyrightlawsinEUstateswithaviewtorecommending
modificationorcreatinganewlawonacademicresearchoutputs(whicharenot
thesameasmusicandothercreativeoutputs)tosupportorpermitOpenAccess

MandatorypoliciesonOpenAccessaretheprovenkeytoengenderinghighlevelsof
OpenAccesscontent(Sale,2006).Anyotherkindofpolicy,howeverpersuasive,doesnot
havethesameeffect,evenwhensupportedbyintenseadvocacyandpracticalsupport.
Mandatorypolicies,aswellashavinganobligatoryelement,serveasawareness-raising
toolsthemselves,especiallywhenimplementedalongwithsupportinginformationthat
reassuresandencouragesauthors.

Thereisalackofawarenessaboutthechangingfaceofscholarlycommunicationon
thepartofpolicymakersthemselves,however,especiallyatinstitutionallevel.Though
thenumbersofmandatorypoliciesintroducedininstitutionshasgrownconsiderably
overthelastfewyears6,thishasbeenachievedonlybyintenseadvocacyeffortwithin
institutionsandbyadvocacyorganisations.Governmentsandlargeresearchfunding

5
A
surveyofmembersofUKlearnedsocietiesbytheAssociationofLearnedandProfessionalSociety
Publishers(ALPSP)foundthatmostsaidtheyknewwhatOAwasandsupportedtheideaofOA
journals,whilefewknewwhattheyweretalkingabout.‘[A]lthough60%saidthattheyreadOA
journalsand25%thattheypublishedinthem,inbothcasesaroundone-thirdofthejournalsnamed
werenotOA.”Inaddition“lessthanhalfknewwhatself-archivingwas;36%thoughtitwasagood
ideaand50%wereunsure.Justunderhalfsaidtheyusedrepositoriesofself-archivedarticles,but
13%ofreferenceswerenotinfacttoself-archivingrepositories.29%saidtheyself-archivedtheirown
articles,but10%ofreferenceswerenottopubliclyaccessiblesitesofanykind.’(FromtheSPARC
Open Access Newsletter, January 2011, by Peter Suber: http://www.earlham.edu/~peters/fos/
newsletter/01-02-11.htm)
6
http://bit.ly/dyWWaA

28

agenciessimilarlyneedtobemademoreawareoftheissuesandimportanceofopening
upscholarshiptoachievegreaterbenefitsforthewidersociety.Thisremainsamajor
issuetobetackled,bothatMSandatEuropeanlevel.Europeaninfluenceintheformof
enablingsomecoordinationactivitiescouldhelp,andthereisacurrentFP7Calloutfor
projectsinthisarea.

Action is also urgently needed from the perspective of author (and funder and
institutional)rights.ActionstoenableOpenAccessandpreservationrequirethatauthors
haveappropriaterights.OneofthegreatestbarrierstoachievingOpenAccessisauthor
uncertaintyoverwhattheyareallowedtodowithrespecttoself-archiving.Clarification
ofthesituation(forauthorsandpolicymakers)regardingrightswouldhelpenormously,
particularlyregardingwhatrightstheyneedtoretaintoenableOpenAccess.AtEuropean
levelamostsignificantcontributioncouldbemadeifitcouldbeensuredthatcopyright
lawcannotbeoverriddenbycontractlaw.Thiswouldupholdexceptionsforscholarly
outputsandachieveabetterbalancebetweentheinterestsofthepartiesconcerned.The
WorkshopnationalexpertsdiscussedandcalledforanewEuropeanlawinthisareato
standardisethesituationacrossMSandclarifytheissueonceandforall.

2.3 Collaborations and partnerships (coordination)


• Revisitagreementswithpublisherstoachievepricetransparency,re-negotiateBig
Dealsandimprovetheproportionofpublishersthatallow‘Green’self-archivingin
repositories
• CoordinationactivitiestosupportadvocacyandothersupportingactionsforOpen
Access
• Identifyexistinginitiativesandbuilduponthem
• Encouragesharingofgoodpractices

NegotiatingwithpublishersonpricingordealsisnotrelatedtoOpenAccesssothispoint
willnotbediscussedfurtherhere.

WithrespecttopublisherpermissionsforOpenAccessprovisionthroughrepositories,
over60%ofjournalsallow‘Green’self-archivingofauthorpostprints(afterpeerreview)
andafurther30%allowself-archivingoftheauthorpreprint(beforepeerreview)7.Yet
theoverallproportionoftheliteraturethatisopenlyavailableisonlyaround20%and
voluntaryself-archivingratesarenomorethanabout15%(thoughtherateishugely
increasedonceaproperly-implementedmandatorypolicyisinplace).Improvementin
self-archivingrateisnotpublisherpermission-dependent,therefore,butinsteadrequires
changesinauthorbehaviour,policysupportand,importantly,clarificationoftheissues
regarding rights (institutional, funder and author rights) with respect to scholarly
informationwhichdiffersagreatdealfromothertypesofcreativeoutput.Thismatter
hasbeendealtwithunderpolicydevelopment(Section3.2)above.

7
EPrintsRoMEO:Journalpolicies–summarystatistics:http://romeo.eprints.org/stats.php


Asidefromthispoint,coordinationactivityatEuropeanlevelhasmuchpotentialbenefit
inthedrivetoachieveOpenAccessandpreservationforscientificoutputs.Ontheone
hand,thereisthedevelopmentofregistriesthatcollect,organiseandshareinformation
abouttechnicalissuesorservicescancatalysedevelopmentsandhelpavoidduplication.
TheseenhanceOpenAccessandpreservationandcontributetotheirdevelopment.

Ontheotherhand,advocacyactivitiesgoonineveryMSbutlessonslearnedareoften
notshared,andthereisclearlyconsiderableduplicationofeffortthatmightbenefitfrom
somecollaborativeapproaches,especiallywithrespecttothecollectionandcontribution
ofdatatotheevidencebase.CoordinationatrepositorylevelisnowprovidedbyCOAR
(ConfederationofOpenAccessRepositories).Thereare,however,manynational-level
advocacyprovidersinEuropethatworkmainlyinisolation.Futuresupportforactivities
thataimtoprovidecoordinationandsupportforadvocacyworkacrossMScouldbevery
beneficialforOpenAccessandforpreservationinitiatives.

Box 10:

Resources on collaborative and coordination activities
• R
egistries:listofexistinginitiatives,studies,projectsanddevelopments(from
theInternationalRepositoryInfrastructuresProject)
• Repositorysupportorganisations:Listoforganisationsandgroups(fromthe

InternationalRepositoryInfrastructuresProject)

2.4 Implementation and manifestations (infrastructure)


• DevelopmentofstandardsforallaspectsofOpenAccess
• Fundingforinfrastructuraldevelopments
• Investmentine-researchinfrastructuresinEurope,especiallythosethatsupport
thedevelopmentoftheOpenDataagenda
• InvestmoreeffortindevelopmentoftechnologiesandenablersofOpenData
• Developtechnicalinfrastructuretosupportpreservationofresearchoutputs
• Fundworkondataandmetadatacurationforthelong-term
• DevelopmentoftoolstosupportdepositandcurationofcontentinOpenAccess
collections
• InvestigationofnewbusinessmodelsapplicabletoOpenAccess(includingusing
opensourcetechnologiesandafocusonaddingvalue)

Standards and infrastructure

StandardsenableinteroperabilityandareessentialforOpenAccesstobeimplemented
effectively.Therehasalreadybeenprogressinthisarea.OAI-PMHandtheDublinCore
metadatastandardunderpintheinteroperabilityofOpenAccessrepositories.Asetof

Knowledge sharing: OA and preservation in Europe

Knowledge sharing: OA and preservation in Europe

Recomendados

Recomendados

Más contenido relacionado

Similar a Knowledge sharing: OA and preservation in Europe

Similar a Knowledge sharing: OA and preservation in Europe (20)

Más de Jean-François Dechamp

Más de Jean-François Dechamp (20)

Último

Último (20)

Knowledge sharing: OA and preservation in Europe