1. M. Muraszkiewicz 11 Open Access to Address Research and Academia in Poland. Warsaw University of Technology M. Muraszkiewicz, mietek@n-s.pl 7 May, 2010 Int. Conference: Transparency in Science, Open Access, and Scholarly Publishing

2. M. Muraszkiewicz 22 Prof. Mieczyslaw Muraszkiewicz Born in Warsaw, Poland Ph.D., Polish Academy of Sciences, 1978 Habilitation (D.Sc.), Warsaw University of Technology, 1984 State Professor, 1993 Consultant/expert of United Nations, World Bank, European Commission, and mobile technology industry in Poland, Germany and the Netherlands Key areas of interest: network information systems, mobile technology, business intelligence, management, e/m-governance Publications: over 110 papers and 12 books; dozens of invited lectures and key-notes Affiliation: Warsaw University of Technology; Warsaw University

3. M. Muraszkiewicz 33 Agenda 1. Presentation’s Purpose. 2. Note on Open Access. 3. Polish Scene  Brief Look. 4. Action Points.

4. M. Muraszkiewicz 44 Presentation’s Purpose.

5. M. Muraszkiewicz 5 Purpose. To briefly inform the audience about the Open Access plans of the Conference of Rectors of Academic Schools in Poland (CRASP) within research and academia. Commission for Science & Innovation chaired by Prof. W. Kurnik, Rector WUT

6. M. Muraszkiewicz 6 Point of Clarification. CRASP wants to help the Government define national Open Access policy and participate in its implementation.

7. M. Muraszkiewicz 77 Note on Open Access.

8. M. Muraszkiewicz 88 Science, Research, Education ethos Law Regulations, IPR Publishers business, profit Open Access Complexity of OA.

9. M. Muraszkiewicz 9 “Open Access is a valuable goal, but the scientific community is overly naive about the whole business of scientific publishing.” M. Beaudouin-Lafon, “Open Access to Scientific Publications. The good, the bad, and the ugly” CACM, Feb. 2010, vol. 53, no. 2

10. M. Muraszkiewicz 10 A Few Myths on OA (to warm up).  OA is about free access and usage.  OA means an article is not copyrighted.  OA articles and journals are not peer-reviewed; they undermine peer review.  The cost of providing OA will reduce the availability of funding for research.  OA article-fee publishing gives well-funded scientists advantages over others.  OA will inevitably harm scholarly societies.  OA publishing is unsustainable.  It is not fair that industry will benefit from OA.  OA threatens scientific integrity due to a conflict of interest resulting from charging authors.  Publishers need to take copyright to protect the integrity of scientific articles.  …

11. M. Muraszkiewicz 11 Polish Scene  Brief Look. Courtesy Jolanta Stepniak Director of WUT Main Library

12. M. Muraszkiewicz 12 Polish OA Journals. There are some 100 OA academic and research journals in Poland. As of 7 April, 2010: –Directory of Open Access Journals (DOAJ) 76 OA Polish items –Ulrichs Global Serials Directory 82 OA Polish items –ARIANTA (Scientific and Professional Polish Journals; http://www1.bg.us.edu.pl/bazy/czasopisma/default_eng.asp ) 55 items available on-line Commercial publishers Versita 24 Termedia 5 Cornetis5 ICI Corporate 4 (Index Copernicus)

13. M. Muraszkiewicz 13 Digital Libraries. As of 7 April, 2010 The Directory of Open Access Repositories – OpenDOAR 19 Polish digital libraries Digital Libraries Federation http://fbc.pionier.net.pl/owoc?action=ChangeLanguageAction&language=en 53 libraries (over 50 collections; over 376,000 objects)

14. M. Muraszkiewicz 14 Repositories. –AMUR - Adam Mickiewicz University Repository, Poznan –ECNIS - Environmental Cancer Risk, Nutrition and Individual Susceptibility, Network of Excellence, Institute of Occupational Medicine, Lodz –Faculty repositories –Researchers’ web pages –… More info on the Polish OA scene in Prof. M. Niezgodka’s presentation

15. M. Muraszkiewicz 15 Action Points.

16. M. Muraszkiewicz Some Conclusions  “+”.. – There is a wide consensus on the principle ”research funded by the public should be available to the public”. – FLOSS is well rooted in Poland, CC has been gaining popularity. – OA attracts more and more supporters and believers. – There is a growing number of those who admit that open access to research results can be a consequential component of the scientific communications system of Poland for it boosts scientific progress, facilitates and enhances cooperation, and helps promote research institutions which practice OA. There have already been a series of discussions on OA in Poland, including the ones under the auspices of CRASP. 16

17. M. Muraszkiewicz Some Conclusions  “–”.. – OA is still in a nascent stage; the point of critical mass has not been reached; however, it seems it’s close at hand. – Lack of legal regulations and financial models (e.g. publication costs are not eligible costs). – The exiting schemes of scientific and education performance evaluation and rating do not take into account OA at all, or in part only. – The awareness of scholars that educational resources, e.g. courseware, and M.Sc., Ph.D., D.Sc. theses should be made available via OA is not grounded and wide enough; still there is a great deal of skeptics (who are afraid of “Digital Maoism”). – The awareness of OA among some government decision makers laisse a désiré. –…–… The major constrains of the OA dissemination and implementation are: 17

18. M. Muraszkiewicz 18 Major Conclusion. CRASP believes that the time is ripe to include OA as a persistent component in the national policy regarding scientific communications, research results dissemination, and education.

19. M. Muraszkiewicz Recommendations.. Addressees 1. To elaborate a national OA strategy regarding scientific communications, research results dissemination, and education with respect to public funded institutions and endeavors. Ministry, CRASP 2. To elaborate and set up a legal framework for the implementation of OA countrywide. Ministry 3. To establish “money flow” procedures and channels, and to provide financial resources to implement and operate OA. Ministry 4. To include the promotion of OA into the agenda of the Polish Presidency of the EU Council in the year of 2011. Government 19

20. M. Muraszkiewicz Specific Measures Recommended by CRASP. Addressees 1. To put priority on channeling subsidies to those publishers who practice OA. Ministry 2. For the period of 2-3 years to assign high scores (impact factor) to these scientific journals which practice OA. (These scores are used while evaluating institutional and individual performance of research and education entities). Ministry 3. To support projects aimed at the establishment and/or upgrading of digital libraries and repositories. Ministry, Academia 4. To set up a coop mechanism with PAS, scientific associations, publishers and other stakeholders to promote and support OA initiatives. PAS, Academia, NGOs, Publishers … 20

21. M. Muraszkiewicz – In public educational institutions to introduce the rule that M.Sc., Ph.D., D.Sc. theses will be published in university repositories. Works financed by public money will be published in repositories and/or OA magazines. – To promote the rule that all educational materials (e.g. courseware) will be published in university repositories. – University publisher to coop on unification of editorial processes and tools based on OA principles. – To advise university libraries and publishers on: * transforming their services to the OA model; * available OA hosting platforms; and * the integration of OA facilities with other information sources/services. – To promote OA magazines and repositories in Poland – To promote Polish OA services worldwide. – To establish a portal “Open Access for Science, Research and Education”. – To coop with international OA counterparts. –…–… 21 CRASP to Set up a Working Group.

22. M. Muraszkiewicz Thank you for listening!