1. Open Access to scientific publications
Jos Engelen
President, Netherlands Organisation for Scientific Research
Faculty Professor, Fac. of Science, University of Amsterdam and
NIKHEF, Amsterdam

2. ESF/Eurohorcs vision and roadmap: implement common policy on
Context:
ESF/Eurohorcs vision and roadmap: implement common policy on
Open Access
Working Group (chair Georg Botz, Max Planck Society) reported
Oct. 20, 2011, Berlin  excellent report, adopted by General Assembly
Preliminary remark: in principle the issue is straightforward (‘everybody’
agrees it should be done).
In practice it is complicated if we want to keep the (established)
publishers on board, who have indeed made essential contributions
to putting in place very high quality standards (editorial process,
peer review) leading to ‘top’ journals (...)
We should make it clear to them, with one voice (that is what
Science Europe is for) that OA is not negociable, it has to be
implemented now.

3. Scholarly Benefits of Open Access
Once open access is the rule rather than the exception, many important benefits to research are to be expected
Greater visibility
A revolution in scientific search and information retrieval
Innovative new information services
some of them commercial
Fostering interdisciplinary research by broadening access
Providing access to: SMEs, community professionals, education.
These observations provide more motivation than matters of principle (e.g. why do scholars give away copyright to their work?)

4. Recommendations
The working group supports the overall vision of the road map.
The aim is a system of scientific publications in which free access to all (published) scientific information is guaranteed. This involves a move towards Full Open Access. Ultimately, this means replacing the present reader-paid publication system with an author- or institution-paid one
Some concrete mid-term actions will make the implementation of the vision more feasible.

5. Recommendations R1: Define roles and responsibilities for Open Access
Establish a central point of contact for all questions related to Open Access in each EUROHORCs MO
This meas­ure will help promoting the awareness of the importance of Open Access amongst researchers and administrators.

6. Recommendations
R2:
Agree on a general statement regarding publication costs
The cost of publication is an integral and legitimate part of the cost of doing and disseminating research
But: Will authors sacrifice grant money to pay author charges?
The working group offers to provide a draft.

7. Recommendations
R3: Implement policies and workflows that allow scholars to pay Open Access “publication charges”
RPO and RFO have to make policy and budgetary decisions that will enable them to finance the publication system in the new way.
This implies organizational issues, e.g. new workflows, as well.
The working group can help to shape such policies by
providing good practice examples and sharing experiences how to make these policies sustainable.
Publishing costs money and provides benefits to the scholarly community. The working group supports the view that the payment of fees that enable Open Access publications is ultimately the responsibility of the author’s employer or of the organisation, which funds the research.
RPO and RFO have to make policy and budgetary decisions that will enable them to finance the publication system in the new way. This implies organizational issues, e.g. new workflows, as well.

8. Recommendations
R4:
Agree on conditions for covering “Open Access Gold” fees
Agree on a set of requirements as a precondi­tion of “Open Access Gold” fees to be covered from MO’s budgets
Avoid “double dipping” in case of “hybrid” Open Access journals
What do we want to buy?
The working group offers to make concrete suggestions for such requirements.
Open Access publication fees have to be taken into account, alongside other revenue streams and all costs, when setting subscription prices for hybrid journals

9. Recommendations R5: Support transitions to Open Access
Develop a common program that encourages publishers to change the business model of prestigious subscription based jour­nals from all disciplines to Open Access or to launch new high level Open Access journals.
Publishers have to address practical issues. To enable progress, the research community must address these issues too:
RPO and RFO should try to create a funding environment that enables publishers to change to open access if they wish.
The working group will work on proposals for initiatives in collaboration with partner groups.

10. Recommendations R6: Agree on standards for “Open Access Green”
Work on a set of standards for archiving and reuse (e.g. version, format, embargo, metadata)
Define en­titlements for “Open Access Green” already in the subscription license agree­ments
This approach could build on experiences that are currently being made with the nationwide opt-in “Alliance licences” in Germany

11. Summary General Assembly approved recommendations
Define roles and responsibilities for Open Access
Agree on a general statement regarding publication costs
Implement policies that allow scholars to pay Open Access “publication charges”
Agree on conditions for covering “Open Access Gold” fees
Support transitions to Open Access
Agree on standards for “Open Access Green”

12. Example:
NWO has made available a budget to help (‘catalyze’)
the transition to Open Access
Incentive Fund for Open Access - Publications
Incentive Fund Open Access – sessions of scientific conferences
Incentive Fund Open Access Journals
Project OAPEN-NL / OAPEN Foundation
Communication on Open Access