This document discusses the role of funders in promoting open access to knowledge over the past 10 years since the Budapest Open Access Initiative. While some progress has been made by funders like the US NIH and UK research councils in mandating open access policies, uptake in Asia has been limited. In Japan specifically, universities have established many institutional repositories but deposit rates remain low, with half of materials being bulletin articles. However, the Japanese government and funders like JSPS and JST are now reconsidering policies to promote open access to research results and enhance institutional repositories.

1. Open
access
to
knowledge:
the
role
of
funders
in
focus
Syun
Tu9ya
Na9onal
Ins9tu9on
for
Academic
Degrees
and
University
Evalua9on
at
the
Global
Research
Council
Asia-­‐Pacific
Regional
Mee9ng,
Sendai
on
December
6,
2012

2. The
year
2012
• Ten
years
aOer
BOAI,
so
the
new
BOAI10
– Budapest
Open
Access
Ini9a9ve,
February
14,
2002
– First
defini9ons
of
the
basic
no9ons,
including
green
and
gold
roads
to
open
access
• How
far
have
we
come
since
then?
– No
prints
any
more,
at
least
in
STM
• Open
access
is
only
possible
in
the
Internet
environment
• Success
of
big
deals
and
apprehension
about
future
sustainability
– Increased
reality
of
open
access
• Ins9tu9onal
repositories
mushrooming
all
over
the
world
• “Realis9c,”
i.e.
commercial
viability
of
open
access
publishing
– Talk
of
open
data,
altmetrics,
“ar9cle
of
the
future,”
open
review,
etc.
• I.e.
a
completely
new
phase
of
scholarly
communica9on,
but
no
discussion
of
that
today

3. A
quote
from
BOAI10,
for
funders
• 1.3.
Every
research
funding
agency,
public
or
private,
should
have
a
policy
assuring
that
peer-­‐reviewed
versions
of
all
future
scholarly
ar9cles
repor9ng
funded
research
are
deposited
in
a
suitable
repository
and
made
OA
as
soon
as
prac9cable.
• Deposits
should
be
made
as
early
as
possible,
ideally
at
the
9me
of
acceptance,
and
no
later
than
the
date
of
formal
publica9on.
• When
publishers
will
not
allow
OA
on
the
funder’s
terms,
funder
policies
should
require
grantees
to
seek
another
publisher.
• If
funder
policies
allow
embargoes
before
new
work
becomes
OA,
the
embargoes
should
not
exceed
six
months.
Policies
should
allow
no
embargoes
at
all
for
uncopyrightable
work.
• Funders
should
treat
publica9on
costs
as
research
costs,
and
should
help
grantees
pay
reasonable
publica9on
fees
at
fee-­‐based
OA
journals.
• When
possible,
funder
policies
should
require
libre
OA,
preferably
under
a
CC-­‐BY
license
or
equivalent.
• A
repository
is
suitable
for
this
purpose
when
it
provides
OA,
supports
interoperability
with
other
repositories,
and
take
steps
toward
long-­‐term
preserva9on.
The
funder’s
choice
should
be
determined
by
ongoing
research
into
ques9ons
such
as
which
choice
best
fosters
the
deposit
of
covered
ar9cles,
the
u9lity
of
deposits,
the
convenience
of
funders
and
authors,
and
incen9ves
for
the
further
growth
of
OA.

4. But
ten
years
ago,
• No
men9on
of
funding
agencies
• So
what
happened?
– US
NIH
Public
Access
Policy
enforced
– UK
RCs
manda9ng
green
deposit
with
ins9tu9onal
repositories,
and
then
Finch
Report
– MPG,
which
actually
is
not
a
funder
per
se,
acted
aggressively
toward
open
access
– No
effec9ve
moves
in
Asia,
but
why?
• Scholarly
informa9on
as
imported
goods
• Lack
of
“interna9onally
acclaimed”
Asian
journals

5. The
case
of
Japan
• Approached
by
SPARC
in
2001
to
collaborate
in
improving
scholarly
communica9on
• ShiO
of
SPARC
aOer
BOAI
toward
open
access
• But,
in
Japan,
there
was
perceived
need
for
the
promo9on
of
subscrip9on
based
society
journals,
which
was
not
successful
aOer
all.
The
idea
of
“ins9tu9onal
repositories”
were
liked
• Japanese
funders
did
not
care
so
much
about
the
accessibility
of
the
results
of
funded
research
then
• Now
so
many
ins9tu9onal
repository
at
universi9es,
but
as
is
the
case
everywhere
it
is
not
very
efficient
• Awareness
of
the
recent
“progress”
of
open
access
journals,
including
PLoS
ONE,
Scien9fic
Reports/NPG
etc
• A
reconsidera9on
at
the
Ministry
level,
resul9ng
in
a
proposal
published
in
July,
2012,
which
recommends,
backed
up
by
Science
and
Technology
Basic
Plan
for
years
2011
thru
2016,
– open
access
to
fruits
from
research
– journals
published
with
open
access
arrangement
– enhancement
of
ins9tu9onal
repositories
as
essen9al
part
of
the
infrastructure
for
knowledge
society
– collabora9on
among
interested
stakeholders,
including
funding
agencies
• Funders,
viz
JSPS
and
JST,
are
being
looked
at!

6. Rela9ve
success
of
repositories:
Over
1M
full
texts
on
over
200
repositories,
but
…
160,000
green
deposits
50%
are
bulle9n
ar9cles

7. Ins9tu9onal
repository
has
its
own
ra9onale
• We
are
proud
that
librarians
on
campuses
all
over
the
country
have
collected
the
ar9cles
to
this
extent,
without
any
mandate
anywhere,
and
we
know
ins9tu9onal
mandate
may
not
work.
See
the
graph.
• But
the
progress
is
slow,
and
the
efforts
are
not
reasonably
rewarding
• Bulle9n
ar9cles,
which
accounts
for
almost
a
half,
are
now
virtually
“published”
there,
hence
almost
golden
open
access
funded
by
ins9tu9ons
• Yes,
ins9tu9ons
need
repositories
to
prove
the
accountability
of
higher
educa9on
ins9tu9ons
at
any
rate,
so
don’t
bother
them
to
operate
them
and
take
advantage
of
their
existence
–
the
gist
of
the
MEXT
proposal

8. Even
if
mandated,
deposits
are
gekng
less?

9. Gold
open
access
is
no
longer
utopean
• Success
of
PLoS
ONE,
an
online
megajournal
– published
almost
14,000
ar9cles
in
2011
– s9ll
has
Journal
Impact
Factor
over
4
– charges
$1,350
for
an
ar9cle
published
– has
saved
PLoS
ONE
from
poten9al
bankruptcy
• Other
commercial
publishers
have
followed
with
– NPG’s
Scien1fic
Reports,
SpringerOpen,
Sage
Open,
• The
lesson
is
that
now
open
access
publishing
is
no
longer
an
“ideal”
but
just
a
business
model,
at
least
for
publishers
• I.e.,
funders
must
not
be
naïve
talking
of
open
access,
given
that
12%
of
journal
ar9cles
are
open
access
as
of
now

10. What
must
not
be
forgonen?
1. Open
access
to
research
results
is
good
for
humankind
as
regards
advancement
of
knowledge
and
welfare
2. So
everybody
agrees
that
it
must
come
true
3. As
far
as
publishing
of
research
results
in
the
form
of
journal
ar9cle
is
concerned,
open
access
to
them
is
made
possible
either
by
self-­‐archiving
or
open
access
publishing
4. Self-­‐archiving
is
not
very
efficient,
but
repositories
have
ins9tu9onal
reason
for
them
to
be
5. Although
nobody
knows
the
future
for
sure,
open
access
publishing
paid
by
authors
seem
to
work
to
a
larger
extent
than
we
once
thought
6. So
funders’
role
is
very
important:
their
decisions
may
not
only
change
scholarly
communica9on
but
the
way
science
is
done
as
well
7. And
there
are
things
to
consider
before
you
decide

11. Some
warnings
• Assuming
that
more
research
will
be
done
with
increased
funding
on
science
and
technology
resul9ng
in
a
lot
more
ar9cles
to
be
published,
a
total
cost
of
making
them
accessible
will
increase,
so
we
need
to
consider
if
any
open
access
model
can
live
with
that
increase
• Ar9cles
are
made
open
access
by
the
authors
who
pay,
more
rigorous
assurance
of
quality
than
by
current
peer
reviewing
might
be
necessary,
due
to
predictable
conflicts
of
interest
• Ar9cles
can
be
only
made
open
access
by
the
authors
if
they
hold
copyrights.
Think
of
the
case
of
using
CC
licenses.
Copyright
will
not
go
away
with
open
access
but
rather
it
will
be
more
important.
Plagiarism
and
duplicate
submission
must
be
avoided
• All
in
all,
research
integrity
will
have
to
be
at
issue
again
with
the
progress
of
open
access
environment