Más contenido relacionado La actualidad más candente (20) Similar a Scholarly Communications Model Policy and Licence: Publishers' Association Concerns together with UK-SCL Steering Group Responses - 2017 10 12 (20) Scholarly Communications Model Policy and Licence: Publishers' Association Concerns together with UK-SCL Steering Group Responses - 2017 10 121. Response from the UK-SCL Steering Group to PA comments on the 22.ix.2017 version
of the model policy
October 12, 2017.
PA text Policy statements SG response
A reminder of the key aims of the UK-SCL and
model policy:
● To facilitate the retention of re-use rights as
encouraged by funders of UK research
● To provide a one-step action by which
researchers can both comply with multiple
funder policies and remain eligible for the REF
and go beyond funder minimum compliance
(e.g. HEFCE, see below). Particularly:
o CC-BY-NC: = RCUK compliant and
above the minimum compliance for
REF eligibility
o Zero month embargo default (earlier
if publisher policies allow): in line
with institutions that have adopted
the Harvard model since 2008
o Automatic granting of a waiver with
6/12 month embargo for those
publishers requesting it:
● compliant with RCUK,
Horizon 2020 etc
● Above REF OA minimum
eligibility
● Allows for accidental 12
month waiver granting of
an output which might
subsequently be allocated
to a Science Panel (= 6
month) embargo, and
consequently ensures all
outputs deposited under
the terms of the model
1 | Page
2. policy are eligible for
inclusion in REF2021.
HEFCE issued a revision to its REF FAQ document – specifically to
section 7. That FAQ contains the following statement:
Section 2 of the RCUK policy contains this statement on green.
The earlier version of the policy, with the provision
on an article by article basis to allow for a
discretionary waiver up to 24 months was drawn up
on the basis of the level of waiver claims
experienced by those who have implemented the
Harvard model policy - <5%. PA members have
indicated that in the UK publishers will request
waivers on a much greater scale. Whilst we still do
not yet comprehend why UK authors would be
treated differently, we felt it necessary to respond.
In offering a blanket waiver to publishers –
something that can be agreed on behalf of all
institutions adopting the UK-SCL – we can eliminate
the need for article by article waiver claiming for
both publisher and institution. For the reasons
stated above, only 6/12 month embargoes would
ensure that all outputs were eligible for inclusion in
REF2021, and would be compliant with not only
RCUK, but other funders including Horizon2020
We note that under the RCUK policy, where funding
is not available to academics the maximum
embargo periods are already 6/12 months –
something that was agreed with publishers during
the Finch-led discussions.
The longer than 6/12 month embargo periods
allowed by RCUK was for a transition period only
and in section 3.10 the policy notes that the
transition “may be around five years in duration”.
We are well into the fifth year of the RCUK policy .
Many other funders already have 6/12 month
minimum requirements so, again, we are unsure as
to why, for UK funded authors, some publishers are
insistent on stretching embargo periods to the
absolute maxima allowed by some funders of some
research. Publishers are already working with 6/12
month embargoes for some funded research, a
growing number of publishers have reduced
embargo periods.
2 | Page
3. For the REF 2021 OA policy – see above.
On this page of the RCUK FAQs updated September 2017
http://www.rcuk.ac.uk/documents/documents/openaccessfaqsv2-pd
f/
2.1 Do researchers have the freedom to choose the green route
even if the publisher offers a ‘gold’ route?
UPDATED Yes: although the Research Councils’ preference is for
immediate unrestricted open access (‘Gold’), they support a mixed
approach to Open Access, and the decision on which route to follow
remains at the discretion of the researchers and their research
organisations.
Where publishers offer a Gold Route, but the researcher chooses
green, papers should be published in a journal with a maximum
embargo of 12 months for STEM funded disciplines, or 24 months in
the arts, humanities and social sciences funded research.
Research papers in biomedicine should be published with an
embargo of no longer than six months, as has been the MRC’s
mandated policy since 2006.
3.9 One of our researchers has recently published in a journal that
offers the gold route but the author did not choose that before
publication and therefore the article does not comply with RCUK
open access policy. Can we use funding from the RCUK open access
block grant to make the article open access?
NEW The decision as to when this is a good use of the RCUK open
access block grant lies with the research organisation. It should
always be the priority to make new articles open access, but where a
research organisation has funds remaining, they may decide to make
a recently published article compliant with the RCUK policy. However,
where the article concerned has not been recently published, then
the research organisation should consider the allowable embargo
periods for the ‘Green’ route ( 6 months for STEM funded disciplines
and 12 months for arts, humanities and social sciences funded
research), and if the length of time from when the article was first
published, to when it is being made publicly accessible exceeds the
embargo period, then the article would not be compliant with the
RCUK open access policy and open access block funding must not be
used to make such outputs open access.
Embargo periods
5.1 If an article is based on work funded by MRC, AHRC and ESRC,
what embargo period applies?
In saying that “the majority of PA members work to
the HEFCE and RCUK policies” what you are in fact
stating is that those publishers work to the
minimum compliance for those policies by
choosing the maximum allowable embargo
periods. Both RCUK and HEFCE have minimum
compliance terms and encourage authors and
institutions to go beyond those minima. RCUK is
quite clear on the transition period.
The UK-SCL offer of a 6/12 month waiver achieves
both the aims of the policy – single step eligibility
and compliance – and achieves the institution aim
of moving away from the minima set by the
funders. In this sense, the UK-SCL does harmonise
with UK funder policies. It also eliminates the
confusion caused by, especially, those publisher
policies which vary depending on the source of
funding that the researcher receives – in other
words those policies that already allow for 6/12
months where the author is not funded, but insist
on 12/24 where funding might be available at the
institution.
3 | Page
4. In circumstances where research is funded by more than one funder,
including multiple Research Councils, the shortest embargo period
will apply, as otherwise Terms and Conditions attached to part of the
funding would be breached. RCUK funded researchers should ensure
that collaborators are aware of all the terms and conditions of their
funders as early as possible, and that relevant wording stating the
obligation to publish results in Open Access is included in
collaboration agreements. As part of future review of the policy, the
Research Councils will consider how maximum embargo periods can
be further harmonised.
Where publishers offer a Gold Route, but the researcher chooses
green, papers should be published in a journal with a maximum
embargo of 12 months for STEM funded disciplines, or 24 months in
the arts, humanities and social sciences funded research.
Yes, the RCUK policy supports a maximum of 12/24
months during the transition period but also
encourages institutions to go beyond that. The
UK-SCL achieves that.
A reminder of the REF statement:
And the RCUK statement on licenses from this document:
6.2 What licenses are compliant with the RCUK OA policy? UPDATED
i) Gold - (immediate open access): Where an APC is paid, it is a
requirement that the licence applied is CC-BY
ii) Green - (deposit of the final accepted manuscript in a repository,
usually with an embargo): The RCUK preference is for CC-BY,
however, the formal requirement is that the licence places no
restriction on non-commercial reuse, including non-commercial text-
and data-mining. The licence should also allow for the sharing of
adaptations of the material. This means a CC-BY-NC licence, or
equivalent is acceptable. A CC-BY-NC-ND licence is not compliant.
HEFCE also encourages institutions to go beyond
the minimum. The UK-SCL achieves that whilst
preserving the NC element that was of concern to
the publishers.
RCUK notes its preference for gold but allows the
academic/institution to choose the green route.
The FAQ is absolutely clear that a ND licence is not
compliant, as highlighted.
4 | Page
5. CC-BY-NC allows a greater degree of TDM beyond
academe, which is what funders and researchers
wish to see enabled, including beyond the UK.
For publishers wishing to claim blanket waivers, we
would wish to reach a single agreement on behalf
of all institutions adopting the UK-SCL.
The Steering Group welcomes the fact that
publishers now feel they can work with us. We
would ask them to support the academics by not
instituting article by article waiver requests –
something that would be costly to both publishers
and unwelcomed by individual academics and their
institutions – but instead work with us to
implement not simply the funder minima but also,
as the UK-SCL seeks to do, to accept the stretch
challenge by funders that institutions are seeking to
rise to and many publishers are responding to.
5 | Page