1. Funder mandates: why, what, who, when, where & how Rachel Proudfoot White Rose Research Online Universities of Leeds, Sheffield and York

2. Introduction & Overview  Why?  What?  Who?  When?  Where?  How?  So what?  What next?

3. Why? A bit of history  House of Commons Select Committee on Science and Technology Report “Scientific Publications: Free for all?”, 2005“Scientific Publications: Free for all?”  Recommendation 44: “Academic authors currently lack sufficient motivation to self-archive in institutional repositories. We recommend that the Research Councils and other Government funders mandate their funded researchers to deposit a copy of all their articles in their institution's repository within one month of publication or a reasonable period to be agreed following publication, as a condition of their research grant. “

4. RCs & other funders  Research Councils: £1.4 billion on research grants to HEIs Fund ½ of funded research in UK HEIs  Other funders interested in what happens to their research: Wellcome (4000 original research papers) “.. a survey undertaken by BioMed Central found that found that fewer than half of the articles resulting from NHS research grants are accessible online to NHS employees” * * Kiley, Robert and Terry, Robert (2006) Open access to the research literature : a funders perspective, in Jacobs, Neil, Eds. Open Access : Key strategic, technical and economic aspects, chapter 10. Chandos Publishing.

5. International issue  National Institute for Health (USA) “ The Public Access Policy requests that investigators funded by the National Institutes of Health (NIH) submit an electronic version of their final, peer-reviewed manuscripts upon acceptance for publication to the NIH National Library of Medicine's PubMed Central (PMC).”  Europe Petition for guaranteed public access to publicly- funded research results  UK world leader in mandating deposit & this talk is predominantly RCs & Wellcome Trust

6. What? Current policies  RCUK – broad principles  “The research councils' position is based on the assumption that publishers will maintain the spirit of their current policies.”  Require repository deposit: Arts & Humanities Research Council Biotechnology & Biological Sciences Research Council Economic & Social Research Council Medical Research Council Natural Environment Research Council  Strongly encourage: Science and Technology Facilities Council  Engineering & Physical Sciences Research Council “The issues are complex” – review in 2008

7. What? Current policies  Wellcome Trust Wellcome Trust Prefers open access publishing Will fund open access publication  Variation in policy  JULIET can help JULIET can help

8. A note on DOIs  Some academics think DOIs embody access rights  May be reinforced by RAE data collection process  DOI ≠ open access compliance

9. Who? Stakeholders  Funders (govt & others)  Researchers – as authors and users  University administrators – key role  Repository staff : advocacy and technical  Library staff : awareness of options  Service providers : hosted repositories  Public  Publishers  General awareness – low outside biomedicine  Do authors read grant documentation?

10. When?  Most requirements already in force Wellcome since Oct 2005 Most RCs since Oct 2006 AHRC Oct 2007  Impact yet to be felt – publications likely 2008/9  Some time to prepare  (But of course we want all research now, regardless of funder )

11. Where? Institutional, subject, funder?  Your local institutional repository! Your local institutional repository  The Depot  What about: ESRC MRC Wellcome

12. How? Case study 1: ESRC  ESRC's policy ESRC's policy  IncReASe Project – White Rose partners  Practicalities of deposit  Where is the funder and grant data  Metadata  Workflow  ESRC / institutional repository workflow  What push/pull mechanisms are required  early(ish) 2008

13. SWORD  Disclaimer: non techie alert!  (Simple Web-service Offering Repository Deposit)  JISC funded  Atom Publishing Protocol  A lightweight protocol for putting stuff in other places  (Looking for case studies!)

14. Case study 2: Wellcome Trust & MRC  Require deposit in UKPMC  Manuscript submission system: “.. A system designed hoping no-one will use it.”  Needs sign off at two points by PIs  Deposit via local repository needs to be tested asap – need elegant solution  Double sign off by the PI.  Need to have grant data  Don’t want to make promises to biomedicine we can’t keep

15. Is medicine a special case?  “Unfortunately comparatively little of our funding supports this kind of e-deposit approach to open access. In addition, many of the journals we target are either already fully compliant with open access requirements or alternatively completely noncompliant-the AACR journals being notable culprits. In either case the repository is of little use.”  Interested in using a repository for “supplemental data”

16. Wellcome & MRC One difference  WT provide specific funds for OA publishing; MRC position more complex

17. Open access fee payment  RIN briefing note RIN briefing note Publication fees as directly incurred costs Publication fees as indirect costs  Nottingham central fund  UCL, Imperial, Edinburgh  Leeds experience  Maybe: Stress it’s an interim measure Avoid perception of the fund as a “library issue” Have some weighting mechanism for disciplinary differences Think carefully who’ll administer fund – secure agreement

18. So what? Benefits of funder mandates  OA  Additional rationale and justification for repository  Pitch in a different way  Repository becomes problem solving  External stipulation of versions  Will make researchers think about dissemination; stop “publication disengagement” “job done”

19. Challenges of mandates  Interface with internal systems  Interface with external systems  Researcher attitudes – tick box?  Data deposit / research outputs – joined up thinking  It will lead to offensive/defensive behaviour by publishers.

20. Case study 3:SAGE  “Sage goes RoMEO green” - Oct 2004  12 month embargo  If funding agency rules apply, authors may use “SAGE open” to comply  Authors are required to contact publisher before posting (permissions.. will always be granted)  Are funder mandates a licence to embargo?

21. What next?  Awareness & engagement with researchers  Opportunity to support research in the round e.g. Nuffield foundation “You should include in the body of your application a discussion of what kind of dissemination might be appropriate and how you plan to carry this out”  Development of elegant technical solutions!  Requirement + workflow integration

22.  “The research councils' position is based on the assumption that publishers will maintain the spirit of their current policies.”  Watch how publishers respond  Embargo  Double dipping  How do we counteract or challenge labyrinthine publisher positions?