1. Getting the Rights Right - or, When Policies Collide!
Bill Hubbard
Director, Centre for Research Communications
University of Nottingham
UKSG Webinar
19th May 2015

2. Overview Open Access The policy environment
Getting a clear perspective on policies
Dealing with policy detail and clashes
A strategic institutional response
Strategy and tactics for getting action

3. Open Access Budapest Declaration Implications . . .
“... the peer-reviewed journal literature and completely free and unrestricted access to it by all ...”
Implications . . .
CC-BY to CC-BY-NC-ND
What re-use? Commercial? Cure for cancer?
Text-mining - data-mining?
Data?

4. What policies exist? Publisher policies Institutional policies
Funder policies
REF policies
REF is principle mechanism for determining research funding
Government policy
Finch Committee

5. Why have policies? - Open Access
Without policies in favour, Open Access adoption hovered at ~15%
Overwhelming majority of researchers in favour of OA concept
Uptake throttled by set working habits, esteem indicators, reward mechanisms
Cultural change requires strong incentives
Money, esteem

6. Why have policies? For control To support paths for development
Understanding background and motivation can be key for an effective response
For the explicit motivations, ask the policy bodies themselves: the following is my own interpretation . . .

7. Why have policies? - Publishers
Driven by perception of commercial need
Faced with uncertainty, human reaction is to freeze the status quo
Controls environment while a sustainable path is worked out
depending on view, controls might read restricts; sustainable might read profitable
“Permissions” or “Restrictions”

8. Why have policies? - Government
Strategic steer, given trends in access to information, transparency
Improved value and returns for public investment
Greater exposure of UK research leading to investment
Improved research environment

9. Why have policies? - REF
Following lead from Government in shaping future of research communications
Reducing administrative overhead in REF
although it might not seem like it right now!
Improves records and clarity in national research picture
Alignment with RCUK and others

10. Why have policies? - Funders
Improved return on public investment
More transparent use of public money
Improved research environment where more research is shared more widely and more quickly
Professional and ethical drivers

11. Why have policies? - Institutions
Positions institution in line with information trends on openness and re-use
Greater exposure for institutional research
Greater engagement with research users and investors
Improved admin, record keeping and picture of institutional research
Aligns with REF and Funder policies

12. What drives compliance?
Professional ethics
Social morality
Fear of consequences
personal
institutional
Can you prioritise by examining compliance drivers for each policy - what are the consequences?

13. Dealing with policies What should be tackled first?
Achieving recognition of the need for compliance in-house
Efficient support structures and processes
Who deals with compliance?

14. Authors cannot be left to sort it out for you

15. Researcher’s view from the past. . .
RCUK
Publisher
Other Funder
Researcher
Funding
The orange lines show funding connections, the white lines show information
This is the researchers view from the past. Funding comes from research funders to the institution, made available to the researcher, who produce information and gives it to a publisher and the publisher makes it available.
Institution

16. Researcher’s view . . . RCUK Publisher Other Funder Researcher Funding
Institutional
Repository
Then there was the option for the researcher to put it institutional repository.
Institution

17. Researcher’s view . . . RCUK Publisher Other Funder Mandate Researcher
Funding
Institutional
Repository
Research funders applied mandates.
Institution

18. Researcher’s view . . . RCUK Publisher Other Funder Mandate ?
with OA Option
Other Funder
Mandate ?
Open Access
Publisher
Researcher
Central/subject
Repository
Funding ?
Institutional
Repository
These mandates then promoted or required open access publication, either in a traditional publisher supplying an open access option, or in a journal produced by an open access publisher. In either case these publishers may or may not then put it in a central repository as well, as part of the publication process they offer.
Alternatively the researcher can deposit it in an institutional repository or subject repository.
Institution

19. Researcher’s view . . . RCUK Publisher Other Funder Mandate ?
with OA Option
Other Funder
Mandate ?
Open Access
Publisher
Researcher
Central/subject
Repository
Funding ?
Institutional
Repository
The requirement or choice of publishing open access is likely to bring with it a need to transfer funds to the publisher for the service.
Institution

20. Researcher’s view . . . RCUK Publisher Other Funder Mandate ?
with OA Option
Other Funder
Mandate ?
Open Access
Publisher
Researcher
Central/subject
Repository
Funding ?
Institutional
Repository
To fulfil the funding connection and publisher the researcher might then have to apply to a funder for an additional grant and then receive this back for onward transfer to the publisher.
Institution

21. Researcher’s view . . . RCUK Publisher Other Funder Mandate ?
with OA Option
Other Funder
Mandate ?
Open Access
Publisher
Researcher
Central/subject
Repository
Funding ?
Institutional
Repository
Or the researcher might have to apply to the institution for publication costs as part of the research grant, or direct from the funders in some way.
Institution

22. Researcher’s view . . . RCUK Publisher Other Funder Mandate ?
with OA Option
Other Funder
Mandate ?
Open Access
Publisher
Researcher
Central/subject
Repository
Funding ?
Institutional
Repository
The institution might have to either apply for funding and then receive it from RCUK, or other research funders, or it might already be in receipt of a pre-existing block grant from the funder for this purpose.
Institution

23. Researcher’s view . . . RCUK Publisher Other Funder Mandate ?
with OA Option
Other Funder
Mandate ?
Open Access
Publisher
Researcher
Central/subject
Repository
Funding
Mandate ?
Institutional
Repository
Added to this many institutions now have mandates.
Institution

24. Researcher’s view . . . RCUK Publisher Other Funder Mandate ?
with OA Option
Other Funder
Mandate ?
Open Access
Publisher
Researcher
Central/subject
Repository
Funding
Mandate ?
Institutional
Repository
Such institutional mandates might require deposition in an institutional database.
Institutional
Database
Institution

25. Researcher’s view . . . RCUK Publisher Other Funder Mandate ?
with OA Option
Other Funder
Mandate ?
Open Access
Publisher
Researcher
Central/subject
Repository
Funding
Mandate ?
Institutional
Repository
The researcher might have access to an institutional open access publication fund.
Institutional
Database
Institution
Institutional
OA Fund

26. Researcher’s view . . . REF RCUK Publisher Other Funder Mandate ?
with OA Option
Other Funder
Mandate ?
Open Access
Publisher
Researcher
Central/subject
Repository
Funding
Mandate ?
Institutional
Repository
The latest addition is the policy from HEFCE which has a direct call for action on both researchers and the institution.
Institutional
Database
Institution
Institutional
OA Fund

27. Researcher’s view . . . REF RCUK Publisher Other Funder Mandate ?
with OA Option
Other Funder
Mandate ?
Open Access
Publisher
Researcher
Central/subject
Repository
Funding
Mandate ?
Institutional
Repository
This strengthens the connection to institutional repository or subject repository.
Institutional
Database
Institution
Institutional
OA Fund

28. Researcher’s view . . . REF RCUK Publisher Other Funder Mandate ?
with OA Option
Other Funder
Mandate ?
Open Access
Publisher
Researcher
Central/subject
Repository
Funding
Mandate ?
Institutional
Repository
If a researcher is now publishing open access then to satisfy the HEFCE policy, there is a requirement for the material to also be put in an institutional or subject repository.
Institutional
Database
Institution
Institutional
OA Fund

29. Researcher’s view . . . REF RCUK Publisher Other Funder Mandate ?
with OA Option
Other Funder
Mandate ?
Open Access
Publisher
Researcher
Central/subject
Repository
Funding
Mandate ?
Institutional
Repository
And so it is against this complex background that has been built up by the principal players in the research process – funders, researchers and institutions – that publication contracts issued by publishers attempt to reach back in time in the research process to make it impossible to comply with mandates from HEFCE, from RCUK, from other funders, from institutions, and take away the possibility (by choice or by mandate) of depositing material in an institutional or subject repository.
Institutional
Database
Institution
Institutional
OA Fund

30. Researcher’s view from the past. . .
RCUK
Publisher
Other Funder
Researcher
Funding
So when expecting authors, or their institutional agents, to comply with the current policy environment, we must contrast the researchers view from the past . . .
Institution

31. Researcher’s view . . . REF Researcher Other Funder Institution
Institutional
OA Fund
Researcher
Other Funder
Institution
Publisher
with OA Option
Open Access
Central/subject
Repository ?
Mandate
RCUK
Funding
Database
. . . with the current situation.
This is why we see the services provided by SHERPA Services in clarifying the various policies which an author is asked to observe, and analysing the interaction between these policies, are of significant value to authors, institutions and funders asking for compliance with the policies.

32. and soon, with added research data?!
REF
Institutional
OA Fund
Researcher
Other Funder
Institution
Publisher
with OA Option
Open Access
Central/subject
Repository ?
Mandate
RCUK
Funding
Database
Institutional
OA Fund
Researcher
Other Funder
Institution
Publisher
with OA Option
Open Access
Central/subject
Repository ?
Mandate
RCUK
Funding
Database
There are currently strong and well founded moves to treat access to research data in the same way as publications and provide open access, where possible, through a variety of routes. It is likely that over the immediate coming years, new policies will come into operation from all of the principal players which will closely replicate those for publication outputs.
And in that case, unless there is harmonisation of policies between funders, harmonisation of policies between funders and institutions, and recognition by publishers that publication is now occurring against a pre-existing set of policies and conditions and access rights, authors might quickly feel they are faced with this tangled web.

33. Authors cannot be left to sort it out for you

34. Is there a key? Publishers need author compliance to publish
Publishers need institutional compliance or could take legal action
Institutions need compliance or, ummm ...
RCUK wants ~ 60% compliance, rising
REF needs 100% compliance in 101/2 months

35. Priorities and Precedence
We tend to see the publisher policy as being the source for rights in an article - the thing that defines what else can be complied with
exemptions (REF)
levels of compliance (RCUK)
“where possible” get-outs (institutions)
Why? This is back to front!

36. Research cycle institutions researchers funders Library Services
IT Services
institutions
Software suppliers
researchers
Equipment suppliers
funders
Research Office
Publishers

37. Is there a key? #2
Publisher policies should respond to the research agenda and not act in opposition!
First decide what the institution needs to comply with, within the research cycle
Respond to the public investment you have been entrusted with
Then see if publisher policies comply with your requirements
Which have the greater strategic validity for the future; for research; for the institution; for the research process; for the best use of public money?

38. Is there a key? #3 Deal with REF Deal with RCUK and others
Ok for REF, ok for most funders (some specific deposit venues and embargoes)
lower levels of compliance required in 2016
Deal with institutional policies

39. Is there a key? #4
Does not take away publisher restrictions, but puts them in context
Now time to address publication choice
previous advocacy avoided this
HEFCE wants to see an institutional process to inform academics of publication choices with exemptions by exception
not business as usual + exemptions

40. Open Access and the REF To be eligible -
Deposited at the point of acceptance
Metadata immediately available
Full-text available after 12 or 24 months
Institutional process to handle exemptions
Applies from April 2016
In-house systems, processes, workflows: ready in 101/2 months!

41. Institutional strategy
Prepare for an OA future
Comply with REF, RCUK and other funders
Address academic issues of choice of publication by opening debate
Examine place of journal brands in rewards
Ensure institutional policies in place and reflect policies of REF and Funders
Ensure support structures in place

42. Internal strategy for change
Use the REF to gain traction for change
Engage senior levels of management in seeing the need for compliance
Engage senior academics in asking for support with REF process
Use the REF coordinators to push for coordination, who know what it is like

43. Summary
Build institutional response around prioritised policy compliance
Open Access is the rule, with exceptions
All institutional stakeholders on top of OA
as an idea; as a process; as a work-flow; as requirements; as developing policies
Researchers need to know what to do -
clear, concise, contextualised

44. There are issues - BUT !
Open Access is a real benefit for researchers, the research process, institutions, funders, tax-payers, the public and for our culture and our future
Support and belief from all of the stakeholders in the research process
All of the issues can be resolved

45. Bill Hubbard Director, Centre for Research Communications University of Nottingham sherpa.ac.uk/romeo sherpa.ac.uk/juliet sherpa.ac.uk/fact sherpa.ac.uk/opendoar