UKSG webinar - Funding Body Open Access Requirements (Ben Ryan slides)

RCUK Policy onOpen Access

UKSG Webinar26 March 2014

Ben Ryan

RCUK Research Outputs Network

[email protected]

Summary

• RCUK OA Policy and transitional flexibility.

• 2014 Review – what and how.• Monitoring compliance and costs.• Sustainability.

Research Councils UK

£11.2B

Why Open Access?

• Research outputs must be accessible - and re-usable - to enable exploitation.

• Research funders have a responsibility to ensure accessibility and re-usability.

• Dissemination is part of the research process and has to be paid for.

• Journals, libraries, repositories & publishers have a key role to play in the process.

Get the stuff out there and get it used!

RCUK Definition of ‘Open Access’

Unrestricted on-line access to peer reviewed and published scholarly research papers.

Specifically a user must be able to do the following free of any publisher-imposed access charge:

1. Read published research papers in an electronic format; 2. Search for and re-use (including download) the content.

Allows unrestricted use of manual and automated text and data mining tools, as well as unrestricted re-use of content with proper attribution (as defined by CC-BY).

Scope of RCUK Policy

• Peer-reviewed research articles:– Published in journals or conference

proceedings;– Acknowledging Research Council funding;– Submitted for publication from April 2013.

• Monographs, books, critical editions, volumes etc currently excluded.

RCUK Support

• Block Grants to support OA paid to most RCUK-funded organisations

• Total values set for 2013/14 (£17m) and 2014/15 (£20m) - based on estimates (average APC, number of papers expected…)

• Values of grants post 2015 not yet set – awaiting clarity on RC funding levels.

Expectations: Researchers

• Publish in RCUK Open Access compliant journal.

• Include Research Council funding acknowledgement (see RIN Guidance)

• Where relevant, include statement on access to underlying research materials.

Expectations: Journals

• Offer ‘Gold’ option:– immediate online access on publication– re-use subject only to a CC-BY licence– free of any publisher imposed access charge– may charge and ‘article processing charge’ (APC)

• Or allow ‘Green’ option:– permit deposit of final accepted MS in any

repository;– permit un-restricted non-commercial re-use;– limited embargo on toll-free access/re-use

(e.g. 6 months in bio-medicine).

Expectations: Institutions

• Institutions receiving RCUK OA block grants to: – Establish institutional publication funds;– Develop processes to manage and allocate

funds transparently and fairly between disciplines and researchers.

• RCUK expects the primary use to be for payment of APCs.

• RCUK preference is for Gold OA, but decision lies with authors and institutions.

Implementation

• Five year transition period.• Compliance:

– Year-one 45%;– Year-two 53%;– Year-five 100% (¾ Gold, ¼ Green).

• First evidence-based review Q4 2014.

Transitional Flexibility

• Embargo periods:– Where funding for APCs unavailable, longer

embargo periods allowable (12/24 months), except biomedicine (6 months max).

• Use of OA block grant:– Flexibility over use, provided delivers RCUK

OA policy;– Primary use still for payment of APCs for

Research Council funded papers.

2014 Review: Scope

• International landscape.• Impact of policy on:

– Disciplines;– Peer review;– Research collaboration.

• Impact of licences.• Embargo periods.• Block grants and costs of managing them.• Overall cost of supporting APCs.

2014 Review: Schedule

• Review panel being constituted.• Call for evidence – planned for Q2 2014:

– Invitations to key stakeholders to submit evidence;

– Plus general ‘open’ call for evidence.• Review panel to consider evidence – Q4

2014.• Confirmed schedule will be widely

publicised.

2014 Review: Compliance monitoring

• Has the RCUK policy made a difference?• How much RCUK funded research is:

– Published?– Gold with CC BY?– Green?– Non-compliant?

• Account for how ‘block grant’ has been spent, on a per-publisher basis.

2014 Review: Compliance Analysis

• By institution and by Research Council:– ‘Year-1’: April 2013 to July 2014;– Then on an academic year basis.

• RCUK analysis based on sub-set of papers reported via ResearchFish and ROS:– Aim to include a ‘Year-0’ baseline

(April 2010 to July 2011).

Monitoring: Working in partnership

• Identify with Research Organisations:– Minimum achievable level of reporting;– Data gathering mechanisms.

• RIN ‘HEI Best Practice Project’:– Cooperative framework for monitoring progress

towards OA;– Working Group established, report due shortly

The future must be sustainable

The motto, Non Solus, says that promoting science is an effort that calls on mutual aid and support - no one can do it alone.

Whatever the business model for OA it must be sustainable.

Sustainable: Who For?

• Publishers:– Publishing quality, peer-reviewed journals costs

money and these costs need to be covered.

• Institutions and funders:– Green is not sustainable with journal

subscriptions rising at 4% to 6% or more PA;– Hybrid-gold is not sustainable whilst institutions

have to pay subscriptions and APCs.

The transition: Non Solus

• Gold OA:– RCUK preference for immediate, unrestricted

access to the ‘article of record’;– Publishers’ preference as sustainable and scalable

in an OA world.• BUT transition costs are disproportionately falling

on research funders and research institutions.• If publishers want Gold to succeed, they must

help to support the costs of transition.– Differential pricing for hybrid-Gold.

Further information

• RCUK Policyhttp://www.rcuk.ac.uk/research/outputs/

• RCUK Blogshttp://blogs.rcuk.ac.uk

• Finch Group reporthttp://www.researchinfonet.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/06/Finch-Group-report-FINAL-VERSION.pdf

• Royal Society Reporthttp://royalsociety.org/policy/projects/science-public-enterprise/report/

• RIN Guidance on Funder Acknowledgementhttp://www.rin.ac.uk/our-work/research-funding-policy-and-guidance/acknowledgement-funders-journal-articles

[email protected]

QUESTIONS ?

2014 Review: Evidence

Information: All articles SourceDOI ROS / ResearchfishGold*/Green/Other/not known ROS / ResearchfishThe licence which applies (including confirmationof CC‐BY for articles flagged as ‘gold’)

Sherpa/FACT service (based on Journal‐leveldata)

Whether article carries FunderAcknowledgement

Random dipstick checking by RCs (incl. throughuse of available bibliometric data e.g. Web ofScience data)

Article carries statement on access to underlyingresearch materials

Random dipstick checking by RCs (incl. throughuse of available bibliometric data e.g. Web ofScience data)

Information: All articles not made immediatelyOA with CC‐BY on publisher’s website

Source

URL ROS / ResearchfishEmbargo period – Sherpa/FACT service (based on Journal‐level

data)

2014 Review: Evidence

Section A – ‘Expenditure by Publisher’

To include all spend connected with publishing individual articles, i.e. APCs, page charges, colour charges, etc

Publisher A £- Number of articles published as a result of this spend

Publisher B £- Number of articles published as a result of this spend

Publisher C £- Number of articles published as a result of this spend

Publisher D £- Number of articles published as a result of this spend

etc… (add rows as necessary)

2014 Review: Evidence

Section B

Other expenditure analysis

Other Expenditure to achieve OA - 1

£ - Brief description (500 characters, incl punctuation and spaces) of activity funded

Other Expenditure to achieve OA – 2

£ - Brief description (500 characters, incl punctuation and spaces) of activity funded

Other Expenditure to achieve OA – 3

£ - Brief description (500 characters, incl punctuation and spaces) of activity funded

etc (add rows as necessary)

sub-total paid to publishers £ -

sub-total of other expenditure

£ -

If balance is negative, a brief description (500 characters incl punctuation and spaces) of source funds used in addition to RCUK block grant

Balance of block grant remaining

£ -