Presentation given to brief academic staff

1. RCUK and open access
Chris Awre
Head of Information Management, Library and Learning Innovation
12th March 2013

2. To cover…
• Why this briefing?
• Open access
• Finch Report
• RCUK open access policy
• Implementation and local impact
• Questions/discussion
RCUK and open access | 12 March 2013 | 2

3. Briefing
• To describe open access and current Government and funder
initiatives in this area of publication
• To highlight specifically the RCUK open access policy and
the terms of this
• To stimulate discussion on the impact and ways forward
• To identify advice and guidance that will best serve the
University of Hull research community around research
dissemination
RCUK and open access | 12 March 2013 | 3

4. Why this briefing?
“The Government, in line with our overarching commitment to
transparency and open data, is committed that publicly-funded
research should be accessible free of charge. Free and open access to
taxpayer-funded research offers significant social and economic
benefits by spreading knowledge, raising the prestige of UK research
and encouraging technology transfer”
Innovation and Research Strategy for Growth
Department of Business, Innovation & Skills, 2011
RCUK and open access | 12 March 2013 | 4

5. Why this briefing?
“The Government, in line with our overarching commitment to
transparency and open data, is committed that publicly-funded
research should be accessible free of charge. Free and open access to
taxpayer-funded research offers significant social and economic
benefits by spreading knowledge, raising the prestige of UK research
and encouraging technology transfer”
Innovation and Research Strategy for Growth
Department of Business, Innovation & Skills, 2011
RCUK and open access | 12 March 2013 | 5

6. Why this briefing?
“The Government, in line with our overarching commitment to
transparency and open data, is committed that publicly-funded
research should be accessible free of charge. Free and open access to
taxpayer-funded research offers significant social and economic
benefits by spreading knowledge, raising the prestige of UK research
and encouraging technology transfer”
Innovation and Research Strategy for Growth
Department of Business, Innovation & Skills, 2011
RCUK and open access | 12 March 2013 | 6

7. Why this briefing?
“The Government, in line with our overarching commitment to
transparency and open data, is committed that publicly-funded
research should be accessible free of charge. Free and open access to
taxpayer-funded research offers significant social and economic
benefits by spreading knowledge, raising the prestige of UK research
and encouraging technology transfer”
Innovation and Research Strategy for Growth
Department of Business, Innovation & Skills, 2011
RCUK and open access | 12 March 2013 | 7

8. Why this briefing?
“The Government, in line with our overarching commitment to
transparency and open data, is committed that publicly-funded
research should be accessible free of charge. Free and open access to
taxpayer-funded research offers significant social and economic
benefits by spreading knowledge, raising the prestige of UK research
and encouraging technology transfer”
“The Research Councils expect the researchers they fund to deposit
published articles or conference proceedings in an open access
repository at or around the time of publication. But this practice is
unevenly enforced. Therefore, as an immediate step, we have asked
the Research Councils to ensure the researchers they fund fulfil the
current requirements.”
Innovation and Research Strategy for Growth
Department of Business, Innovation & Skills, 2011
RCUK and open access | 12 March 2013 | 8

9. Why this briefing?
“The Government, in line with our overarching commitment to
transparency and open data, is committed that publicly-funded
research should be accessible free of charge. Free and open access to
taxpayer-funded research offers significant social and economic
benefits by spreading knowledge, raising the prestige of UK research
and encouraging technology transfer”
“The Research Councils expect the researchers they fund to deposit
published articles or conference proceedings in an open access
repository at or around the time of publication. But this practice is
unevenly enforced. Therefore, as an immediate step, we have asked
the Research Councils to ensure the researchers they fund fulfil the
current requirements.”
Innovation and Research Strategy for Growth
Department of Business, Innovation & Skills, 2011
RCUK and open access | 12 March 2013 | 9

10. Why this briefing?
“The Government, in line with our overarching commitment to
transparency and open data, is committed that publicly-funded
research should be accessible free of charge. Free and open access to
taxpayer-funded research offers significant social and economic
benefits by spreading knowledge, raising the prestige of UK research
and encouraging technology transfer”
“The Research Councils expect the researchers they fund to deposit
published articles or conference proceedings in an open access
repository at or around the time of publication. But this practice is
unevenly enforced. Therefore, as an immediate step, we have asked
the Research Councils to ensure the researchers they fund fulfil the
current requirements.”
Innovation and Research Strategy for Growth
Department of Business, Innovation & Skills, 2011
RCUK and open access | 12 March 2013 | 10

11. Why open access?1
• Improved visibility of research
– Particularly to those unable to access all the journal
literature
• Greater impact through wider awareness
– Difference demonstrated through a range of studies
• Easier to facilitate and manage use and re-use of outputs
– Standard practice at Public Library of Science (PLoS)
• Demonstrate greater value of publicly-funded research
– The basis of the Government‟s approach
1 – See UK Open Access Implementation Group, http://open-access.org.uk/
RCUK and open access | 12 March 2013 | 11

12. Open access
• “Open access (OA) literature is digital, online, free of charge, and
free of most copyright and licensing restrictions” (Peter Suber,
http://legacy.earlham.edu/~peters/fos/overview.htm)
– Free of price barriers
– Free of permission barriers
• Two common forms
– Gold OA
• Usually publication through a journal that makes the output freely
and openly available via the Web. Such a journal may charge a fee to
publish
– Green OA
• Depositing the output in an open access repository that exposes the
outputs freely and openly to the Web (whilst also managing the
content)
RCUK and open access | 12 March 2013 | 12

13. Open access comparison
Intermediary Output
Publishe
r
Article
Publishe
r
Repository
Article
Article
R
E
A
D
E
R
££
££
££
A
U
T
H
O
R
Organisation
££
RCUK and open access | 12 March 2013 | 13

14. Open access options
• Gold
– Can publish in completely open access journal
• Directory of Open Access Journals, http://www.doaj.org
– Most publishers charge an APC
• Author or Article Processing Charge
• Anything from £50 to £3,000
– Hybrid OA option
• Pay APC to journal normally charging a subscription to open up your article
• Green
– Institutional or subject repository
• Deposit could be to one or other, or both
– Repositories may also hold supplementary materials
• E.g., data, reports, etc
RCUK and open access | 12 March 2013 | 14

15. The Finch Report
• Accessibility, sustainability, excellence: how to expand access to
research publications (July 2012)
• Explored the two open access options
– Addressed question: How to make open access work on a scalable
basis for all publicly-funded research?
• Recommendations:
– Gold OA (also Hybrid OA)
– Public funders should „establish more effective and flexible
arrangements to meet the costs of publishing in open access and
hybrid journals‟
– Policies to minimise restrictions on use and re-use of publications
– More work should be done to explore models for open access
monographs
– Repositories should be developed to complement Gold OA,
particularly in regard of associated data and grey literature
RCUK and open access | 12 March 2013 | 15

16. Finch debate
• The Government accepted all the Finch recommendations in principle
– The Committee will reconvene in July 2013 to review progress against
them
• Many are unconvinced that Finch has chosen the right course
– Open access has been largely welcomed
– Gold OA, though, appears to be giving more money to publishers (and
uncertainty as to the source of that money)
– Expectation that journal subscriptions will come down has been
received with scepticism
• Two Parliamentary enquiries ongoing
– House of Lords Select Committee on Science and Technology
– House of Commons Business, Innovation & Skills Select Committee
– Querying open access options and implementation of Finch
recommendations
RCUK and open access | 12 March 2013 | 16

17. RCUK open access policy
• “Researchers, as the generators of all of the research papers
and responsible for much of their peer review, are expected
to publish any peer-reviewed research papers which
acknowledge Research Council funding in journals that are
compliant with the RCUK policy on Open Access.
• All papers must include details of the funding that supported
the research and, if applicable, a statement on how the
underlying research materials – such as data, samples or
models – can be accessed.”
RCUK and open access | 12 March 2013 | 17

18. RCUK – compliant journals
• Taking a lead from Finch, Gold OA is preferred
• Journals must
– Provide immediate and unrestricted access to the final
published version of the paper, using the Creative
Commons Attribution (CC-BY) licence. An APC may be
paid
• Many journals are seeking to demonstrate RCUK compliance
– Recommended to ask publishers their approach
– SHERPA FACT tool will offer compliance advice from
April
• http://www.sherpa.ac.uk/fact/
RCUK and open access | 12 March 2013 | 18

19. RCUK Gold OA policy
Intermediary Output
Publishe
r
Article
Publishe
r
Repository
Article
Article
R
E
A
D
E
R
A
U
T
H
O
R
RCUK and open access | 12 March 2013 | 19
Optional

20. RCUK – alternative option
• Where a publisher does not offer compliant Gold OA, or no APC funding
is available, a normal subscription journal may be used
• The journal consents to deposit of the final Accepted Manuscripts (that
include all changes resulting from peer review but not necessarily
incorporating the publisher‟s formatting) in repositories for open access
– Without restriction on non-commercial re-use (CC-BY-NC)
– Without payment of an APC
– No more than a 6 month delay between publication and deposit to
repository
• Except for AHRC and ESRC, which allow for 12 months
• May be some initial exception up to 24 months
• If the journal does not meet these requirements, they should be asked to
do so, or an alternative title identified
RCUK and open access | 12 March 2013 | 20

21. RCUK Green OA policy
Intermediary Output
Publishe
r
Article
Repository Article
R
E
A
D
E
R
A
U
T
H
O
R
6/12 months
RCUK and open access | 12 March 2013 | 21

22. RCUK – additional points
• Gold OA preferred due to publisher role in QA process
– But Green OA considered perfectly acceptable where no Gold OA
compliant journal is available
• RCUK views open access as a journey, not an event
– Five-year transition anticipated
• RCUK terms and conditions have been amended to incorporate the open
access policy
• RCUK will expect an annual report on adoption from each institution
• RCUK policy covers journal articles and conference proceedings, though
focuses on the former
– Issue of open access to conference proceedings needs resolution
RCUK and open access | 12 March 2013 | 22

23. Implementation and local impact
• Gold OA
– LLI is monitoring RCUK developments re: the policy and
compliant journals
• Relevant information will be circulated as it becomes available
– All those publishing outputs from RCUK grants need to ask
publishers to check journal compliance
• Research Councils may ask about publication decisions
– APCs need to come from block grants, not research grants
• Re-consideration of how funds are allocated
• Many publishers offer this route and are compliant, others are
moving in this direction
– Watch for novel models and offers, plus new publishers
RCUK and open access | 12 March 2013 | 23

24. Implementation and local impact
• Green OA
– Hydra institutional digital repository available for use at Hull –
http://hydra.hull.ac.uk
• Submission is via Converis
– Does your discipline make a repository (or archive) available?
• E.g., arXiv, http://arxiv.org
– All open content in repositories are crawled by Google to
maximise access possibilities
• Almost all UK universities have repositories
– See OpenDOAR – http://opendoar.org - for a full global list
RCUK and open access | 12 March 2013 | 24

25. In conclusion
• RCUK have expressed the wish that all research outputs
generated from their research should be open access
– This has been the case since 2006
• Revised policy in the light of the Finch Report and with
Government backing seeks to give teeth to the previous
approach
– RCUK wish to work with the research community to get
the best out of open access
• Preferred Gold OA route seeks publisher transformation
– Changes will happen
– Green OA a viable back-up during the journey
RCUK and open access | 12 March 2013 | 25

26. Summary flowchart (local)
Article to publish
Identify journal
Check RCUK
compatibility
Find and pay APC
Check repository
deposit policy
Deposit in repository
Publish
Conference item to
publish
Check proceedings’
open access policy
Find and pay APC?
Yes Yes
No
No
OK
Not OK
££
No
£
No
£
No
£
RCUK and open access | 12 March 2013 | 26

27. Research publicly funded?
Yes No
Gold OA option available from your publisher?
Yes No
Are APC funds available from
research funder?
Green OA after 6 months
(AHRC/ ESRC after 12 months)
Yes No
Immediate Gold OA Green OA after 12-24 months
Summary flowchart
(RCUK)
RCUK and open access | 12 March 2013 | 27

28. Thank you
…Questions?
Chris Awre, c.awre@hull.ac.uk