HERA website: www.heranet.info

Deliverable number HERA D7.1.4

Title HERA Open Access Report

Work Package WP7

Actual submission December 4 2009 – final version date (contractual date)

Organisation Danish Agency for Science Technology and Innovation name(s) of lead contractor for this deliverable

Author(s) Inger Schow

With the help of all HERA partners

Nature Report

Status Final version

Dissemination level Public

Abstract The report contains a short inventory of studies on open access already carried out in certain countries or by the European Commission

Contract no: ERAC-CT-2005-016179

HERA Report on Open Access

final version, December 2009 Danish Agency for Science Technology and Innovation

work package 7 task 7.1.4

HERA Report on Open Access

At the HERA meeting in April 2008 it was decided that DASTI should carry out a survey about Open Access under work package 7. An outline proposal for the project was presented and approved at the HERA meeting in Strasbourg October 2008. One of the reasons for including such a survey in the HERA activities was the fact that the HERA Board decided to include demands for Open Access in the HERA JRP Call for Proposals. This decision was also enforced by the European Commission in the Grant Agreement for the ERANET Plus top-up for the HERA JRP common pot, which states: Beneficiaries shall deposit an electronic copy of the published version or the final manuscript accepted for publication of a scientific publication relating to foreground published before or after the final report in an institutional or subject-based repository at the moment of publication. Beneficiaries are required to make their best efforts to ensure that this electronic copy becomes freely and electronically available to anyone through this repository: - immediately if the scientific publication is published "open access", i.e. if an electronic version is also available free of charge via the publisher, or - within 12 months of publication.

The grant agreements for the HERA JRP collaborative projects will contain a similar clause.

In the past months DASTI has been active in compiling further information about Open Access studies and practices both at national and European level. For several years Open Access has been a topic of interest especially for libraries. The libraries have been challenged by a marked rise in the price of acquiring scientific journals.

At the European level the discussion was highlighted by the Council’s Conclusions on Scientific information in the Digital Age from November 2007. In these Conclusions the member states of the European Union commit themselves to several initiatives in regard to Open Access. In the Conclusions the Commission also commits itself to the now implemented pilot project on Open Access in the 7th framework programme (FP7). The pilot project incorporates 20 % of the total budget for FP7 including social sciences and humanities. Several European stakeholders have, furthermore, made recommendations in regard to Open Access; the European Research Advisory Board (EURAB) and the European University Association (EUA).

In the spring of 2009 the Commission carried out a survey on the implementations of the Council’s Conclusions on scientific information in the digital age. In June a summary of responses to a previous questionnaire was sent to all member states. The most important conclusions are summarized in the attached document. As for the Humanities it can be concluded that some European initiatives in regard to publishing humanities monographs in Open Access are underway. OAPEN is a project on Open Access publishing for humanities and social sciences monographs. OAPEN is made up of a consortium of University-based academic publishers and is co-funded by the European Commission. More information about OAPEN can be found on http://www.oapen.org/ .

Furthermore, we would like to inform you about an interesting study on the costs and benefits of Open Access for the United Kingdom, the Netherlands and Denmark which was carried out in 2009.

Included in the meeting file for your information are the following documents:

√ Council conclusions on scientific information in the digital age as adopted by the Competitiveness Council meeting on 23 November 2007.

√ Survey on the implementation of the Council's conclusion on scientific information in the digital age which was carried out in spring 2009.

√ Study on Open Access – What are the economic benefits? A comparison of the United Kingdom, Netherlands and Denmark. This document can also be downloaded from: http://www.knowledge-exchange.info/Default.aspx?ID=316

HERA Report on Open Access – December 2009 - p. 3/3

COUNCIL OF Brussels, 23 November 2007 THE EUROPEAN UNION

15362/07

RECH 378 ATO 155 COMPET 388 REGIO 52 TELECOM 147

NOTE from: General Secretariat No. prev. doc. : 14690/1/07 RECH 325 ATO 145 COMPET 348 REGIO 43 Subject: Outcome of proceedings of the Council (Competitiveness) on 23 November 2007 - Council conclusions on scientific information in the digital age

Delegations will find attached the Council conclusions on scientific information in the digital age as adopted by the Competitiveness Council meeting on 23 November 2007.

______

15362/07 TB/cb 1 DG C II EN

COUNCIL CONCLUSIONS ON SCIENTIFIC INFORMATION IN THE DIGITAL AGE: ACCESS, DISSEMINATION AND PRESERVATION

THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION

RECALLING: - the 24 August 2006 Commission Recommendation on "the digitisation and online accessibility of cultural material and digital preservation" (OJ 2006/L 236/28) and the related Council Conclusions of 13 November 2006 (OJ 2006/C 297/01);

- the 14 February 2007 Commission Communication on "scientific information in the digital age: access, dissemination and preservation" COM(2007)56;

- the 4 April 2007 Commission Green paper on "the European Research Area: New Perspectives" COM(2007)161;

- The OECD’s Principles and Guidelines for Access to Research Data from Public Funding, agreed by all OECD Countries in 2007.

CONSIDERING that: - access to and dissemination of scientific information – publications and data – are crucial for the development of the European Research Area, and can help accelerate innovation;

- the Internet has created unprecedented possibilities to disseminate, share and build on the outcome of research efforts;

15362/07 TB/cb 2 DG C II EN

- Information and Communication Technologies revolutionise the way scientists communicate, perform research and produce knowledge;

- in an era of high speed connectivity and high performance computing, data emerges as key for modern science;

- the systems by which scientific information is published are pivotal for its dissemination and quality control, in particular through peer review, and thus have a major impact on research funding policies and on the excellence of European research;

- universities, libraries, research performing and research funding organisations, scientific publishers and other stakeholders have in recent years made considerable investments in information technologies for online accessibility;

- effective and long-lasting digital preservation of scientific information is fundamental for the current and future development of European research;

1) WELCOMES

- the Communication COM(2007)56 on "scientific information in the digital age: access, dissemination and preservation" as a basis for further work at the European level on the accessibility and preservation of scientific information.

2) RECOGNISES

- the major contribution of universities, international research organisations, research bodies, libraries and other public organisations, as well as of scientific publishers, to the scientific dissemination process;

15362/07 TB/cb 3 DG C II EN

- that new, Internet-based dissemination models have triggered a major debate involving all concerned stakeholders on access to and dissemination of scientific information and in particular on access to peer-reviewed scientific articles;

- that over the past years scientific libraries' capacity to provide researchers with access to a wide range of publications has been affected by rising overall prices of scientific journals (including electronic distribution of publications);

- the strategic importance for Europe’s scientific development of current initiatives to develop sustainable models for open access to scientific information.

3) UNDERLINES

- the need to ensure rapid and wide access to publicly funded research results;

- that Member States have a strong interest in an efficient scientific information system that maximises the socio-economic impact of public investments in research and technological development;

- the importance of scientific output resulting from publicly funded research being available on the Internet at no cost to the reader under economically viable circumstances, including delayed open access;

- the cross-border nature of many research endeavours, of their funding sources, and of their dissemination channels;

- the importance of better access to unprocessed data and repository resources for data and material that allows fresh analysis and utilisation beyond what the originator of the data had envisaged;

15362/07 TB/cb 4 DG C II EN

- that new forms of electronic communication have the potential to enable open access to data and scientific publications, and provide a unique opportunity for the open development of specific data mining, analysis and integration tools, possibly enhanced by common format standards;

- that policies and practices in the Member States on access to and preservation of scientific publications and research data are developing at different speeds;

- the importance of effective collaboration between different actors, including funding agencies, researchers, research institutions and scientific publishers, in relation to access, dissemination and preservation of scientific publications and research data;

4) TAKES NOTE

- of recent reports calling on the Commission to improve access to results stemming from the research it funds, including reports of the European Research Advisory Board and the European Research Council's Scientific Council supporting open access to Community funded research results;

- of the intention of the Commission to support further research on the scientific publication system, and to carry out a study on the economic aspects of digital preservation.

15362/07 TB/cb 5 DG C II EN

5) INVITES THE MEMBER STATES

As first steps and in line with the annex, to

- reinforce national strategies and structures for access to and preservation and dissemination of scientific information, tackling organisational, legal, technical and financial issues;

- enhance the co-ordination between Member States, large research institutions and funding bodies on access, preservation and dissemination policies and practices;

- maximise access for researchers and students to scientific publications, in particular by improving public procurement practices in relation to scientific information; this could include exchanging information on these practices and increasing the transparency of the contractual terms of "big deals", and exploring the possibilities for funding bodies, research institutions and scientific publishers from different Member States to work together in order to achieve economies of scale and efficient use of public funds by demand aggregation;

- ensure the long term preservation of scientific information - including publications and data - and pay due attention to scientific information in national information preservation strategies;

6) INVITES THE COMMISSION TO

As first steps and in line with the annex, to

15362/07 TB/cb 6 DG C II EN

- monitor good practices in relation to open access to European scientific production, including those arising from large scale experiments by scientific communities and large research institutions, and encourage the development of new models that could improve access to European scientific research results;

- monitor the current situation of public virtual scientific libraries in the EU and other ongoing developments across Europe relating to access of students and researchers to scientific information and to its digital preservation, as well as the relevant legal framework conditions that may have an impact on access to this information;

- experiment with open access to scientific data and publications resulting from projects funded by the EU Research Framework Programmes in order to assess the appropriateness of adopting specific contractual requirements;

- encourage research into digital preservation, as well as experiments on and wide deployment of scientific data infrastructures with cross-border, cross-institution and cross-discipline added-value for open access to and preservation of scientific information;

- support and contribute to improving policy co-ordination and to fostering a constructive debate and exchange of information between stakeholders.

______

15362/07 TB/cb 7 DG C II EN

ANNEX

A. Invitation to the Member States to:

1. Reinforce national strategies and structures for access to and dissemination of scientific information by: defining clear policies for dissemination of and access to scientific 2008 information, including the associated financial planning; promoting, through these policies, access through the internet to the results 2008 of publicly financed research, at no cost to the reader, taking into onwards consideration economically sustainable ways of doing this, including delayed open access assessing in a systematic way conditions affecting access to scientific 2008 information, including: - [the way in which researchers exercise their copyrights on scientific articles;] - the level of investments in the dissemination of scientific information as compared to total investments in research; - the use of financial mechanisms to improve access, such as refunding VAT for digital journal subscriptions to libraries; ensuring that repositories of scientific information are sustainable and 2010 interoperable; bringing together main stakeholders in the debate on scientific information 2008 (scientists, funding bodies, libraries, scientific publishers)

15362/07 TB/cb 8 ANNEX DG C II EN

2. Enhance the co-ordination between Member States on access and dissemination policies and practices by: exploring the possibility for national funding bodies to define common basic 2008 principles on open access; improving transparency of the contractual terms of 'big deals' financed with 2008 public money and assessing the possibilities to achieve economies of scale by demand aggregation; working towards the interoperability of national repositories of scientific 2009 information in order to facilitate accessibility and searchability of scientific information beyond national borders; contributing to an effective overview of progress at European level, informing 2008 the Commission of results and experiences with alternative models for the dissemination of scientific information.

3. Ensure the long term preservation of scientific information - including publications and data - and pay due attention to scientific information in national preservation strategies by: defining a structured approach to the long term preservation of scientific Mid-2008 information and incorporating this approach in national plans for digital preservation established in line with the Commission Recommendation of 24 August 2006 and Council Conclusions of 13 November 2006 on online accessibility to cultural material and digital preservation; taking into account the specific characteristics of scientific information when 2009 setting up the legislative framework (including legal deposit) or practical set-up for digital preservation.

15362/07 TB/cb 9 ANNEX DG C II EN

B. Invitation to the Commission to implement the measures announced in the Communication on "scientific information in the digital age: access, dissemination and preservation", and in particular to:

1. Experiment with open access to scientific publications resulting from projects funded by the EU Research Framework Programmes by: defining and implementing concrete experiments with open access to scientific 2008 publications resulting from Community funded research , including with onwards delayed open access.

2. Support experiments and infrastructures with a cross-border added-value for access to and preservation of scientific information by: co-funding of research infrastructures, in particular by linking digital repositories 2007 at European level and co-funding research on digital preservation within FP7; onwards supporting experiments with open access with a clear cross-border added value.

3. Contribute to improved policy co-ordination between Member States and to a constructive debate between stakeholders by:

bringing together, at the European level, concerned stakeholders in the debate on 2007 scientific information onwards monitoring good practices in relation to open access to European scientific 2008 production. onwards

______

15362/07 TB/cb 10 ANNEX DG C II EN

EUROPEAN COMMISSION RESEARCH DIRECTORATE-GENERAL

Directorate L - Science, economy and society

Brussels, 9 June 2009 (final version)

QUESTIONNAIRE TO CREST MEMBERS AND OBSERVERS - SUMMARY OF RESPONSES FOLLOW-UP OF THE COUNCIL CONCLUSIONS ON SCIENTIFIC INFORMATION IN THE DIGITAL AGE: ACCESS, DISSEMINATION AND PRESERVATION (22-23 NOVEMBER 2007, 14865/07)

TABLE OF CONTENTS

I. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY AND SUGGESTED STEPS FORWARD ...... 2

II. BACKGROUND ...... 3

III. QUESTIONNAIRE OBJECTIVES...... 4

IV. OVERALL RESPONSE TO THE QUESTIONNAIRE...... 5

V. NATIONAL STRATEGIES FOR ACCESS TO AND DISSEMINATION OF SCIENTIFIC INFORMATION (QUESTIONNAIRE SECTION B)...... 5

VI. COORDINATION OF ACCESS AND DISSEMINATION POLICIES AND PRACTICES (QUESTIONNAIRE SECTION C)...... 14

VII. LONG TERM PRESERVATION (QUESTIONNAIRE SECTION D) ...... 17

VIII. ROLE OF THE EUROPEAN COMMISSION (QUESTIONNAIRE SECTION E) ...... 19

IX. ANNEX: NATIONAL AND EUROPEAN INITIATIVES ...... 21

Commission européenne, B-1049 Bruxelles / Europese Commissie, B-1049 Brussel - Belgium. Telephone: (32-2) 299 11 11.

I. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY AND SUGGESTED STEPS FORWARD The Commission received 30 responses to the questionnaire on scientific information in the digital age, 25 from CREST members (EU Member States) and 5 from CREST observers. The responses provide informative details on ongoing initiatives in the Member States. Overall, it is encouraging to see how many valuable activities are underway in the Member States. There is now a need to capitalise on these existing activities in order to move towards convincing and robust national and European strategies on access, dissemination and preservation in the digital age. National strategies on access and dissemination: Member States are increasingly attentive to the issues of access to and dissemination of digital scientific information. The growing number of national initiatives in this field shows a clear and encouraging move towards the development of policies in these areas. And yet, while many countries feature important activities coordinated by funding bodies, universities and/or libraries, to date there are very few of the nationally coordinated strategies or policies called for in the 2007 Council Conclusions on scientific information in the digital age: access, dissemination and preservation. Policies on open access to research data are less developed than policies on open access to peer-reviewed publications, and researchers are not yet sufficiently aware that open access is not necessarily in conflict with publishers' copyright provisions. Investment in the dissemination of scientific information as a percentage of investment in research is estimated between 1% and 10%. In many countries, digital subscription currently carries a considerably higher Value Added Tax (VAT) than paper subscription; some countries have addressed this issue through the financial mechanism of reimbursement of VAT to libraries. Work on setting up institutional and other types of repositories has progressed well, even if much work remains to be done. Stakeholder activities are well-developed, but mostly informal in nature. Coordination activities on access and dissemination: Different types of coordination activities exist, in particular declarations and position papers, coordination initiatives supported by European funding, and coordination initiatives supported by national or other sources of funding. Important declarations include the Berlin Declaration, and position papers by the European Heads of Research Councils (EUROHORCS) and the European University Association (EUA). A noteworthy coordination initiative funded at national level is the Knowledge Exchange, including Danish, Dutch, German and UK- based organisations. While existing declarations and initiatives form a solid basis to build on, explicit common national funding body principles, for example on open access, are still missing. A number of international organisations such as the International Coalition of Library Consortia focus on negotiating big deals with publishers, and CERN is creating an innovative and transparent Sponsoring Consortium for Open Access Publishing in Particle Physics (SCOAP3). Despite these advances, transparency regarding most big deals is still lacking. Finally, significant coordination initiatives are underway regarding the interoperability of repositories, in particular via the European project DRIVER (Digital Repository Infrastructure Vision for European Research. Regarding preservation, the work of the Alliance for Permanent Access is crucial at European level. Long-term preservation: While many of the responding countries have put in place strategies regarding digital preservation of cultural heritage in general, specific attention to the preservation of scientific information needs to be further developed within most existing national policies and legislative frameworks. Some countries have

2 developed high level strategies, but they have not yet been put into practice convincingly and researchers are not yet sufficiently aware of preservation as a key issue in this area. More awareness is needed regarding the preservation of scientific information articles and data in order to prevent a serious loss of scientific information in the long term. Role of the European Commission: Respondents generally expressed support for European Commission activities regarding access to, and dissemination and preservation of digital scientific information. They welcomed future activities, for example encouraging coordination and cooperation of Member State policies, and supporting further development of a pan-European e-Infrastructure. Suggested follow-up actions for Member States In the light of the above, three main follow-up actions are suggested (corresponding to the three areas for action referred to in the 2007 Council Conclusions): (1) Formulate clear and coherent national strategies on access and dissemination: Where not yet the case, Member States should formulate national strategies on access and dissemination by building on existing initiatives initiated by other actors. Ideally, these should address open access, copyright, investment in the dissemination of research results, VAT rates for digital subscriptions, repository and interoperability issues, and the inclusion of stakeholders. The development of clear national strategies will facilitate European policy coordination.

(2) Enhance Member State coordination of policies on access and dissemination: Member States should build on existing coordination initiatives to further enhance the coordination of policies and practices on access and dissemination. Issues to address are open access, improving the transparency of big deals and negotiating contractual arrangements ensuring open access (versus only access for a limited group of users), and further work towards implementing trans-border interoperability of repositories. The European Commission can assist Member State coordination through support actions.

(3) Member States should ensure that the specificities of scientific information are taken into account within existing national preservation strategies. In particular, this means addressing the needs of the scientific community and the functioning of the science and research system. Moreover, Member States should invest in raising researchers' awareness of the importance of preserving scientific information

II. BACKGROUND Efficient and reliable access to scientific information is crucial for the advancement of science and provides the means for researchers to share, build upon and re-use research results, thus avoiding duplication of effort and resources. The preservation of scientific information is equally important in order to ensure the important scientific information can be retrieved and used in the long-term. The advent of the internet and the emergence of electronic publishing have provided unprecedented possibilities for digital access to and preservation of scientific information. However, there is a perception among the scientific community at large that these opportunities are not being sufficiently exploited. On the question of access, it is felt that, despite the digital revolution, high and rising

3 scientific journal subscription prices are providing a barrier for effective knowledge sharing. Consequently, over the past years, researchers have been calling for "open access" to the research results produced from public funding, i.e. free of charge access via the internet. At the same time, scientific publishers underline that publishing has a high cost, and that introducing open access without thinking through the consequences may jeopardise the functioning of the current scientific system. It is in this context that many public funding bodies, including the European Commission, have been investigating ways to improve better access to the research they funds. The European Commission began to examine the scientific publishing market from a research policy perspective in 2006 with the publication of the "Study on the economic and technical evolution of the scientific markets in Europe". This study led to a debate at European level on how to improve the current European science system in terms of access to and dissemination of scientific information. The question of long term preservation of scientific information was first addressed in 2006 in Commission Recommendations and Council Conclusions on online accessibility to cultural material and digital preservation. In February 2007, the Commission adopted a Communication on scientific information in the digital age: access, dissemination and preservation (COM(2007)56). This document launched a European level policy process on access, dissemination and preservation issues, and announces a series of Commission measures, including experimentation with open access, funding of e-infrastructures, and promoting dialogue with stakeholders. On this basis, on 23 November 2007 the 2832nd Competitiveness Council adopted Conclusions on scientific information in the digital age: access, dissemination and preservation (14865/07). These Conclusions invite Member States to reinforce and coordinate relevant national strategies, and ask the Commission to monitor good practices and support Member State policy coordination. The Conclusions introduces a timeline with specific actions to be taken between 2008 and 2010.

III. QUESTIONNAIRE OBJECTIVES Within the context described above, on 5 December 2008, the Commission presented a questionnaire to CREST members and observers following up on the implementation of the 2007 Council Conclusions. The objectives attached to this questionnaire are: • to take stock of the current status of implementation by Member States and suggest follow-up actions at Member State level,

• to design future actions at European level supporting the coordination of Member State initiatives,

• to gain important input for the future development of a policy on access and dissemination in the 8th Framework Programme, and

• to contribute towards the policy process on the creation of the "fifth freedom" (free movement of knowledge) in the European Research Area (ERA).

Results of the questionnaire, as well as of its forthcoming discussion at the CREST meeting on 12 June 2009, will be presented and discussed among stakeholders during the European Research Area (ERA) conference "Working together to strengthen European

4 research" to be held on 22-23 October 2009 in Brussels. They will also feed into the work of the CREST Working Group on Knowledge Transfer. The following summary of responses to the CREST questionnaire first gives a general overview of the responses received (III.), then discusses each of the main sections of the questionnaire (IV. national strategies for access and dissemination, V. coordination of access and dissemination policies and practices, IV. long term preservation, VII. role of the European Commission), and finally draws some conclusions and suggests possible ways forward (VIII.). The annex to this paper lists selected further information resources indicated by the respondents (IX.).

IV. OVERALL RESPONSE TO THE QUESTIONNAIRE Responses were received from 30 CREST members and observers (out of 38): • 25 responses from CREST members (EU Member States): Austria (AT), Belgium (BE), Bulgaria (BG), Cyprus (CY), Czech Republic (CZ), Denmark (DK), Estonia (EE), Finland (FI), France (FR), Germany (DE) Greece (EL), Ireland (IE), Italy (IT), Latvia (LV), Lithuania (LT), Luxembourg (LU), Malta (MT), the Netherlands (NL), Poland (PL), Portugal (PT), Romania (RO), Slovakia (SK), Spain (ES), Sweden (SE) and the United Kingdom (UK). • 5 responses from CREST observers (all of which are associated with FP7): Iceland (IS), Montenegro (ME), Norway (NO), Switzerland (CH), Turkey (TR). • Member States and observers who have not yet responded to the questionnaire are welcome to do so. Any further input received will feed into next policy steps. Filled-in questionnaires can be submitted until Monday 13 July 2009 to: Mr Jean-Michel Baer, Director Directorate for Science, Economy and Society European Commission, Research Directorate-General [email protected]

V. NATIONAL STRATEGIES FOR ACCESS TO AND DISSEMINATION OF SCIENTIFIC INFORMATION (QUESTIONNAIRE SECTION B) Summary Section B of the questionnaire is divided into 6 sub-questions dealing with access and dissemination activities at national level. It focuses on overall national policies regarding both publications and data, the development of repositories, and stakeholder involvement. Responses to this set of questions reveal that most countries have not yet put in place clear national strategies regarding access and dissemination. Many countries feature well-developed activities not coordinated at national level (ministry, administration), but instead often at the level of funding bodies, universities and/or libraries. This finding is coherent with the fact that the debate and actions on access and dissemination to date have their roots within the scientific and research librarian communities; indeed, funding bodies, universities, and research libraries, who are closest to researchers' needs, are first to face the need to develop appropriate policies. In terms of the financial mechanisms in place to fund national policies and initiatives, the vast 5 majority of countries reported that the funding is part of the budgets of national ministries and government departments. In some cases, regional governments provide funding. Policies on open access to research data are less developed than policies on open access to publications. The 2007 OECD Recommendation and guidelines on access to research data from public funding remain a main point of reference on the question of access to research data. On the question of copyright, in most countries researchers follow the conditions applied by scientific publishers. The majority of researchers are not aware that open access is not necessarily in conflict with the copyright provisions contained in publishing agreements. Several respondents underline that more and more scientific publishers are allowing researchers to self-archive their work. Investment in the dissemination of scientific information as a percentage of investment in research is not systematically calculated by the responding countries. Most estimates for this figure are situated between 1% and 3%, with some estimates going as high as 10%. As part of their investment of dissemination of scientific information, individual organisation or governments have used "big deals" or national licences (purchasing bundles of journals from publishers), but transparent information on how much money is spent in these agreements with publishers is hard to come by. Despite the fact that digital subscriptions can boost access and increase incentives for joint purchases and economies of scale, in Europe, this form of subscription currently carries a considerably higher Value Added Tax (VAT) than paper subscriptions which typically benefit from a reduced VAT rate. In most of the responding countries, awareness raising campaigns are underway, but very little success has been achieved towards putting in place financial mechanisms that could improve access to scientific information. Replies on the question about repositories/open archives, on the other hand, show a great deal of successful national activities, and many of these look to standards developed at European level through the project DRIVER (Digital Repository Infrastructure Vision for European Research) as a point of reference (see V.). Regarding stakeholder activities across Europe, many European countries have been quite active in bringing together main stakeholders in the debate on access and dissemination (the research community, libraries, universities, funding bodies, publishers). While some are formal and structured (e.g. at government-level), most – especially activities involving publishers – are ad hoc and informal.

Overview of individual replies Please describe the policies in place for dissemination of and access to scientific information in your Member State, including information on how these policies are financed (question No. 2)

Responses received from AT, BE, BG, CH, CY, CZ, DE, DK, EE, EL, ES, FI, FR, IE, IS, IT, LV, LT, ME, MT, SE Specific national initiatives can be found in Cyprus, where the Research Promotion Foundation (RPF) framework programme has specific measures in place to promote the dissemination of scientific results. National policies are currently being prepared in Czech Republic, Denmark and Greece. In Lithuania, the 2009 Law on Research and Higher Education provides that state-funded research results shall be publicly available if

6 in line with legal acts on intellectual property. In Poland, the Minister of Science and Higher Education's Programme for the ICT Infrastructure Development 2007-2013 includes components on digitisation and the creation of virtual libraries. Romania's national strategy "Research, Development, Innovation" (RDI) provides policy guidance for the dissemination of scientific knowledge and its optimised application. A first draft of a Spanish Science and Technology law including specific articles on access and dissemination is being developed. In Sweden all universities are by law obliged to provide information about research to the surrounding society. This includes access to research results for commercial application as well as general information to the public and others. There is no extra financing for this apart from resources for commercialisation of research.

Several countries, in particular Austria, Belgium, Estonia, Latvia, Luxembourg and Norway, reported that responsibility for dissemination of and access to scientific information falls within the remit of libraries, including libraries in research organisations, university libraries and/or national libraries. In France, Germany, Italy and Ireland, a variety of policies are implemented in research organisations, funding bodies and higher education establishments. In the Netherlands, activities are coordinated and guided by the Royal Netherlands Academy of Arts and Sciences (KNAW), the Data Archiving and Networked Service (DANS) and SURF which unites research universities, universities of applied sciences, and research institutions. In the UK, the SHERPA (Securing a Hybrid Environment for Research Preservation and Access) services, a large network of UK universities hosted by the University of Nottingham, is a useful and internationally recognised and used tool. It features up-to- date and authoritative listings of publishers' copyright and archiving policies (RoMEO), Research funders archiving mandates and guidelines (JULIET), and a worldwide Directory of Open Access Repositories (OpenDOAR). A similarly important service with international importance is based at the University of Southampton, including ROAR (tracking the growth of existing open access repositories) and ROARMAP (growth of institutional self-archiving policies).

Please describe the policies and arrangements in place in your Member State aiming to provide open access (free internet access for readers) to peer-reviewed scientific journal articles resulting from public research funding (question No. 3)

Responses received from AT, BE, BG, CH, CY, DE, DK, EE, EL, ES, FI, FR, IE, IS, IT, MT, NL, PL, LV, LT, ME, NO, PT, RO, SE, SK, TR, UK Responses to this question indicate that many funding bodies have adopted policies on peer-reviewed publications resulting from the research they fund, often in the form of open access mandates requesting funded authors to self-archive peer-reviewed scientific articles ("green" open access) (e.g. Austrian Science Fund in Austria, Some research organisations in France, all major funding organisations in Ireland, the Research Council of Norway, and many funding bodies in the UK). Some funding bodies cover the cost of publishing in open access journals ("gold" open access), and some, such as the Wellcome Trust in the UK, liaise directly with publishers for the implementation of open access mandates.

7 In Germany, in addition to the existence of individual funding body policies, 9 key funding bodies have created the Alliance of German Science Organisations and adopted a Priority Initiatives "Digital Information" covering open access as one of its priority areas. Iceland is in the final stages of developing a national research policy (2009-2012) including a section on open access. All the journals published by the Academy of Sciences in Lithuania put their full text articles on the web. In 2008, Portugal created a national open access scientific repository to provide an aggregated entry with a common search engine to all scientific information. The draft Science and Technology Law in Spain includes a section devoted to open access to science. The Netherlands have implemented many initiatives to support open access to publications, many of which are led by SURF, with the close support of the Royal Netherlands Academy of Arts and Sciences (KNAW), the Netherlands Organisation for Scientific Research (NWO), the Dutch higher education sector, and research institutions. In the Netherlands, 2009 has been declared "Open Access Year", and efforts are being made to formulate and implement an open access policy, develop and improve the knowledge infrastructure, establish a clear legal framework, and create awareness with all stakeholders. In Sweden, the Research Council will in the near future implement an Open Access policy as a requirement on all recipients of research grants and the Association for Higher Education (SUHF) strongly encourages all universities and colleges to introduce open access policies in accordance with the Berlin declaration. Many universities across Europe have established institutional repositories to support self archiving, and some have adopted open access mandates requiring researchers to deposit their articles in institutional repositories after a specific embargo period. For example, in Finland, the University of Helsinki's mandate will enter into force in 2010 requiring that researchers working at the University deposit copies of their research articles in the University's repository. Further examples are the recent mandate of the University of Liège in Belgium and the University of Zurich in Switzerland.

Please describe the policies and arrangements in place in your Member State aiming to provide open access to other publicly funded scientific research results (e.g. research data) (question No. 4)

Responses received from AT, BE, BG, CH, CY, DE, DK, EE, EL, ES, FI, FR, IE, IS, IT, LV, LT, MT, NL, NO, PL, PT, RO, UK In Belgium, the second phase of the digitisation plan of the federal scientific and cultural institutions is under preparation and will support the digitisation, online access and long-term preservation of important and broad sets of scientific collections and research data. In Bulgaria, the National Centre for Information and Documentation (NACID) has a mandate of national data collection, processing, maintaining and dissemination of reference and analytical information to support the national policy in education, science and innovation as well as to support Bulgarian research bodies. Estonia has a national programme on “Collections of Humanities and Natural Sciences” which stores, develops and make accessible scientific collections and datasets. In Finland, the Ministry of Education is planning activities concerning the storage, reuse and long term preservation of the digital research data and material. France actively supports open access to research data and is involved in several European projects dealing with the sharing and security of research data. In Germany, the Alliance of German Science Organisations is working on a priority area specifically 8 devoted to primary research data, and the involved research organisations aim to formulate a common data policy. In the Netherlands, extensive work is underway towards providing open access to research data. The web portal NARCIS contains scientific publications and research output from all Dutch universities, scientific institutes, the Royal Netherlands Academy of Arts and Sciences, and the Netherlands Organisation for Scientific Research. It contains over 2,100 data sets from the Electronic Archiving System (EASY) of the DANS (Data Archiving and Networked Services) institute which are data sets in the fields of arts and humanities, and social sciences. In Norway, the Ministry of education and research has started a process for policy development on access to research data. The 2005 University and Colleges Act states that research data should be made publicly accessible in accordance with norms and regulations within the relevant field of research. Public Norwegian institutions with an active policy include the Research Council of Norway (RCN), the Norwegian Social Science Data Services (NSD) and Statistics Norway. In the UK, the UK Research Councils are developing a key set of principles for the curation and sharing of data arising from the research they fund and research-intensive universities are increasingly developing considerable technical capacity to store, curate and where appropriate, share research data.

Please assess the situation in your Member State regarding: (question No.5)

- the way in which researchers exercise their copyrights on scientific articles

Responses received from AT, BE, CY, DE, DK, EE, EL, ES, FR, IE, IT, LT, MT, ME, NL, NO, PL, PT, RO, SE, SK, TR, UK Denmark’s Electronic Research Library (DEFF) has supported the project "Licence to publish - promoting Open Access and authors' rights in the Nordic social sciences and humanities". This Licence to Publish is a standard publishing contract that enables researchers to self-archive articles. In France, CNRS (Centre National de la recherche scientifique), INSERM (Institut national de la santé et de la recherche médicale) and some French universities are focusing on raising awareness amongst their researchers on copyright issues. In Germany, the Alliance Initiative "Digital Information" calls for a reform of the current German copyright law that would secure authors' right to provide open access to their research findings. In Sweden, no legislation or policy exist on how researchers should exercise their copyright, it is their own individual choice, however if a research funder has implemented an open access policy then the grant recipient is expected to fulfill the terms of that policy. In Norway, the copyright situation varies from discipline to discipline. While in some disciplines, researchers sign over their copyright to the publishers as a matter if routine, in others, for example in the humanities, where book publishing with commercial potential is common, researchers are more aware of the possibility of securing their rights. Some Norwegian university libraries have set up support services to help researchers clarify their rights to self-archive articles. In Spain, institutions with repositories have developed agreements and deposit licences, which they use to request non-exclusive distribution rights for authors’ articles. In the UK, the Intellectual Property Office section of the Department for Universities, Innovation and Skills provides advice and services regarding intellectual property rights. Many researchers assign their copyright to publishers, though an increasing number are now granting licences to publish. 9

- the level of investments in the dissemination of scientific information as compared to total investments in research

Reponses received from AT, BG, CH, DE, EE, EL, ES, FI, FR, IE, IT, LV, LT, MT, NO,NL, PL, PT, RO, UK In Austria, the Austrian Science Fund allows a global budget of 5 % for dissemination costs, which can include costs for open access publishing. In Bulgaria, the investment of the Ministry of Education and Science for national licences as a percentage of total public investments for research is about 3%. Estonia has calculated their investment in the dissemination of scientific information for 2007 as 1.8% of total R&D investment. In Greece, the investment by the state in the dissemination of the scientific information as compared to total investment in research activities is estimated to be roughly 10% of the Gross Domestic Expenditure on Research and Technological Development (GERD). In Latvia, the current investment in the dissemination of scientific information as compared to the total investments in research do not exceed 2%. In Lithuania, while there are no official statistics, the estimate is 1% of GERD. Malta puts it estimate between 2% and 3%, and Romania estimates about 2%. The Netherlands refer to the results of the Knowledge Exchange report "Costs and Benefits of Research Communication: the Dutch Situation" which will be presented in June 2009 in Brussels in a Knowledge Exchange seminar on the economic benefits of open access. This report will be widely available following its presentation and discussion at the Dutch ministry of Education, Culture and Science in June 2009. In Spain, the level of investment devoted to the dissemination of research is estimated at 1.5% of the budget of the National R&D program. Some countries mention that they have invested in dissemination via big deals and national licences, i.e. bulk journal subscriptions by institutions or governments. In this type of agreement, all affiliates (or users within a set of designated national institutions) area granted free electronic access to the bundle of journals purchased. For instance, Portugal has negotiated a big deal at national level meaning that all public research institutions, universities and polytechnics have free unlimited access to the national online library known as b-on: Knowledge Library Online and subscribing to more than 16,000 titles. The costs are paid by the state through the Knowledge Society Agency (UMIC). Other countries in which this type of work has been undertaken are Germany and the Netherlands. A variation on the big deal, in which publishers grants open access (versus only access to affiliates of the paying institution(s)) has recently started to take shape, e.g. the much publicised deal between the international publisher Springer and Germany's Max Planck Society

- the use of financial mechanisms to improve access (e.g. refunding VAT for digital journal subscriptions to libraries)

Responses received from AT, BE, CH, CY, DE, DK, EE, ES, FR, IE, IS, IT, LT, ME, MT, NL, NO, PL, PT, RO, SK, UK In several countries, specific actors are actively trying to lobby to put in place mechanisms to lower VAT for electronic journals or to obtain a VAT refund mechanism. In Austria, scientific libraries have called for a reduced VAT rate of 10 % for digital scientific journals (the current VAT rate is 20 %), but have not yet been successful. In Belgium, the project "VAT on information sources" was launched to calculate the cost 10 and to develop a refunding mechanism for VAT which is 6% on printed literature, and 21% on digital literature. A proposal will be submitted to the Federal Minister of Finance. In Estonia, the VAT for digital journal subscriptions to libraries is twice as high (18%) as VAT for paper journals and books (9%), and unfortunately there is no refunding of VAT for digital journal subscriptions. Research libraries and the Ministry of Education and Research have made proposals to reduce or remove the VAT for digital journal subscriptions, but these have so far been rejected by the Ministry of Finance because it is not foreseen for reduced VAT rates to apply to “electronically supplied services”. In Germany, the Alliance Initiative "Digital Information" also calls for an end of the "distortion of competition between print publication and digital publication […] by equalising the applicable rates of value added tax". In Italy, the Confederation of Italian University Rectors (CRUI) has approached the Italian Ministry for Economy and Finance in order to try and obtain a VAT refund, but to date no real progress has been made. In Norway, libraries do not pay any VAT for paper journals, but do for subscriptions to digital versions of the same journals. In connection with a white paper on the libraries in Norway, it was proposed to remove the VAT for digital journal subscriptions, but the proposal was turned down by the Ministry of Finance, in charge of the national VAT. In Spain, some universities and consortia have made efforts towards obtaining VAT deductions or exemptions, but have not been successful so far. In the UK, VAT incurred through the purchase of digital journal subscriptions may be recovered by the university through the normal VAT processes.

Please describe the policies and activities in your Member States with regard to "repositories" ("open archives") of scientific information (including repository sustainability and interoperability) (question No. 6)

Responses received from BE, CY, CH, AT, DE, DK, EE, EL, ES, FI, FR, IE, IS, IT, LV, LT, MT, NL, NO, PL, PT, RO, TR, UK In Denmark, all universities have locally established institutional repositories in which it is possible to register metadata and deposit full text material. The repositories are interoperable and the content is searchable through The Danish National Research Database. In Finland, first repositories were set up in 2004 by individual universities and research institutions around the country, and this development has continued since. In France, the multi-disciplinary repository Hyper Articles en Ligne (HAL) was set up by the Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique (CNRS) in 2001, and in 2006, an agreement was signed between the conference of university presidents and several organisations to use HAL as a common tool to enhance the dissemination and visibility of French research outputs. Today, HAL also acts as a national aggregator of institutional repositories set up in individual organisations, and guarantees long term preservation of deposited content. According to the German association DINI (Deutsche Initiative für Netzwerkinformationen), focusing on research networks and repositories, there are 138 repositories in Germany today. DINI is also well-known for its DINI-certificate, a certificate guaranteeing minimum repository quality standards. In Greece, 15 institutional repositories have been established, these are not yet interconnected. A central portal facilitating information retrieval and providing added-value services is therefore the next planned step. In Ireland, in 2007, governmental funding has been made available to each Irish university to build open access institutional repositories, and

11 to develop a harvesting and discovery service via a national portal. This is a three-year project directed by the Irish Universities Association and managed by the Irish Universities Association Librarians' Group. It is intended that this collaboration will be expanded to embrace all Irish research institutions. Italy reported that it has 42 open access repositories throughout the country, many of which are accessible via the portal PLEIADI. In the Netherlands, the national programme DARE (Digital Academic Repository) coordinates and stimulates the development of repositories containing scientific output, and DAREnet is the name given to the network of Dutch digital academic repositories. The DARE guidelines, i.e. the rules and agreements that allow access through connected repositories, were applied in the European DRIVER project (Digital Repository Infrastructure Vision for European Research, see V.). In Norway, through the work of the Norwegian Association for Higher Education Institutions, today all public universities and almost all public university colleges have established their own institutional open archives. A of 2004, university libraries developed a national search service for open institutional archives entitled NORA (Norwegian Open Research Archives) aiming to develop technical solutions, promote the value of open access and establish NORA as “the single point of harvesting” in Norway. In Portugal, institutional repositories are well developed, and the Knowledge Society Agency (UMIC) offers and a free service to house institutional repositories of interested universities, polytechnics, national laboratories and other scientific institutions. In Spain, there are currently 46 institutional repositories, and a national aggregator has been created to access all the content with the individual repositories via the RECOLECTA project. In Turkey, most scientific studies produced in universities are deposited in institutional repositories or on the web pages of universities, and efforts are underway to create a national policy on repositories. In the UK, there are several national, subject-based repositories for OA research papers, including UK PubMed Central, and ESRC’s Society Today. The Joint Information Systems Committee (JISC) has played an important role in the development of UK repositories. Deposit in these repositories tends to be mandatory for papers arising from research funded by the relevant funding bodies. Also, several universities have adopted policies requiring their researchers to deposit research papers into an open access repository. Important work is underway with respect to article-level usage statistics from open access repositories, for example the Publisher and Institutional Repository Usage Statistics (PIRUS) project which will ensure that usage statistics are comparable with similar statistics relating to journals held on publisher websites. The DISC-UK Datashare project has pioneered the use of institutional repositories for curating and sharing research data.

Please describe any activities in your Member States bringing together main stakeholders in the debate on scientific information (e.g. scientists, funding bodies, libraries, scientific publishers) (question No.7)

Responses received from AT, BE, CH, DE, DK, EE, EL, ES, FI, FR, IE, IS, IT, LT, MT, NL, NO, PL, PT, RO, SE, TR, UK In Belgium, stakeholders within the research community are members of regional coordinating bodies and it is through these bodies that there is dialogue with scientific publishers. Cooperation with the university research councils would need improvement. Denmark's Electronic Research Library (DEFF) brings together major stakeholders both

12 nationally and internationally. In Estonia, there are no regular events bringing together all stakeholders; informal communication and bilateral relationships are the main instruments used. In France, numerous meetings are convened at regional and national level to bring stakeholders together for discussion. In Ireland, funding bodies tend to coordinate stakeholder relations. In Sweden, the universities, colleges, main research funders and the National Library of Sweden are organized in an organization called “openaccess.se” to jointly promote in practice open access, creation and development of local repositories, to increase access, to develop data mining tools and improve long term preservation of scientific information.

Greece plans to organise an annual conference on open access bringing all stakeholders together. The first one was organised by the National Documentation Centre on “Open Access Infrastructures: The Future of Scientific Communication” with the participation of Greek and international stakeholders. In Italy, many conferences, seminars, and meetings across the country involving relevant stakeholders on many different topics (copyright, open access, VAT) have been organised by different organizations such as universities, the Conference of University Presidents, as well as cultural and professional associations and research institutions. In Lithuania, the most active players in the field of Open Access are research libraries, and awareness raising events are organized in close collaboration with the Lithuanian Academic Libraries Network, the Ministry of Education and Science, the academic community, and the Lithuanian Academic Publishers Association. In the Netherlands, there are several organisations which initiate events, seminars, workshops and conference around the open access debate. In 2008, a working Group consisting of representatives of the government, the VSNU (Association of the 14 research universities, the Royal Academy of Sciences), the university libraries and publishers, began a discussion process on the future of open access. In Norway, there are quite frequently conferences and seminars bringing together important stakeholders. An example is the annual Munin-seminar held by the University of Tromsø. Various events have been held in Spain to discuss the issues of scientific information and communication. The subject areas most commonly dealt with are the quality of scientific journals, institutional repositories, open access to science, scientific dissemination, etc. These events have been promoted by research groups from universities, university libraries and responsible Ministries. In the UK, the Research Councils UK (RCUK) Research Outputs Group is involved in research related issues around scientific information. It has several strands of work which bring together relevant stakeholders. The Joint Information Systems Committee (JISC) supports education and research by promoting innovation in new technologies. It has working groups that focus on current trends in scientific information and include representatives of publishers (JISC Board, Publishers Action Group), and researchers, funders and librarians (JISC Board, various sub-committees, Scholarly Communications Group). A Universities UK working group has been set up to investigate the availability to authors of funds to pay open access publication charges. This working group has representation from scientific publishers, universities, libraries, JISC and research funders.

13 VI. COORDINATION OF ACCESS AND DISSEMINATION POLICIES AND PRACTICES (QUESTIONNAIRE SECTION C) Summary The second section of the questionnaire is made up of one question sub-divided into 3 sub-areas on coordination in different areas relating to access to and dissemination of scientific information (common funding body principles, big deals, repository interoperability). In filling in these categories, respondents mainly reported coordination taking the form of declarations and position papers, coordination initiatives supported by European funding, and coordination initiatives supported by national or other sources of funding. With regard to common national funding body principles, respondents' replies were not limited to funding bodies, but rather referred to initiatives by a range of different actors. The Recommendations on Open Access of the European Heads of Research Councils (EUROHORCS)'s are the main document cited that represents the views of funding bodies. This document recommends to its members to sign the Berlin Declaration and follow EURAB's opinion on open access where possible, but does not suggest establishing a common policy on open access. An important coordination initiative funded by national organisations is the Knowledge Exchange including Danish, Dutch German and UK-based organisations. A number of international organisations focus on negotiating big deals with publishers as consortia, or even as consortia of consortia (most importantly, the International Coalition of Library Consortia). Big deals enable access to users affiliated with the members of the negotiating consortium, but not open access. As is the case for national big deals, transparency regarding how public money is being spent via this type of agreement is lacking. The European Organisation for Nuclear Research (CERN) is going beyond the big deal model via its innovative initiative SCOAP3 (Sponsoring Consortium for Open Access Publishing in Particle Physics) which aims to create a funding consortium for open access publishing in the field of high energy physics. Important coordination initiatives are underway regarding interoperability of repositories and standards. One important effort in this area is the European project DRIVER (Digital Repository Infrastructure Vision for European Research) which pursues the objective to create a pan-European infrastructure for digital repositories. Many institutional and national repository systems are compatible with the guidelines developed by DRIVER. Regarding preservation, the work of the Alliance for Permanent Access is crucial at European level.

Overview of individual replies How has your Member State been involved in exploring possibilities for Member State coordination regarding access and dissemination questions? (question No. 8)

- defining common national funding bodies principles on open access

Responses received from AT, BE, BG, CH, CY, DE, DK, EE, EL, ES, FI, FR, IE, IS, IT, LT, LV, MT, NL, NO, PL, PT, RO, SK, UK A large number of respondents to this question mentioned that access issues are covered by the Berlin Declaration on Open Access to Knowledge in the Sciences and

14 Humanities, signed by over 250 universities, learned societies, foundations and libraries, calling for open access to human knowledge and cultural heritage. Several references were made to the Recommendations on Open Access (OA) of the European Heads of Research Councils (EUROHORCS)'s which have 24 European member organisations (of which 21 are in EU Member States). These include a recommendation to sign the Berlin Declaration and to adopt the 2006 European Research Advisory Board recommendations (which call for green open access with a 6-month embargo period). A further important initiative comes from the European University Association whose Working Group on Open Access adopted a Statement from the EUA Working Group on Open Access in 2007 suggesting a series of areas for actions at university level, including the preparation of statements and position papers, building interoperable open access repositories, strengthening the legal rights of authors, advancing open access publishing business models, and encouraging peer review and quality control mechanisms by academic researchers for open access journals. The issue of access to specifically data is tackled by the Organisation for Economic Co- operation and Development (OECD)'s Principles and Guidelines for Access to Research Data from Public Funding which set up guidelines to facilitate cost-effective access to digital research data resulting from public funding. An important cooperation effort by Member States on access, dissemination preservation issues is the Knowledge Exchange which supports the use and development of Information and Communications Technologies infrastructure for higher education and research. The partners of the Knowledge Exchange are based in 4 EU Member States: Denmark’s Electronic Research Library (DEFF), the German Research Foundation (DFG), the Joint Information Systems Committee (JISC) (UK), and SURF (NL). The Knowledge Exchange is active in the areas of open access, e-infrastructure (repositories), and copyright. In 2007, the Knowledge Exchange and other organisations launched a "Petition for guaranteed public access to publicly-funded research results" which to date has over 27.000 signatures. An investigation of the impact of "green" open access (through self-archiving of peer- reviewed author manuscripts) on reader access, author visibility, and journal viability is underway in the EU co-funded project PEER (Publishing and the Ecology of European Research) which brings together publishers, repositories and researchers. A further relevant European project is the recently launched project SOAP (Study of Open Access Publishing) focusing specifically open access publishing ("gold" open access). Some respondents also referred to the EU co-funded project Europeana (European Digital Library), which focuses on facilitating access to cultural material easier in a multilingual online environment building on Europe's rich heritage.

- improving transparency of the contractual terms of 'big deals' financed with public money and assessing the possibilities to achieve economies of scale by demand aggregation Responses received from AT, BE, BG, CH, CY, DE, DK, EE, EL, ES, FI, FR, IE, IS, IT, LT, LV, MT, NL, NO, PL, PT, RO, SK, UK Important work in the area of big deals has been done by the International Coalition of Library Consortia (ICOLC) comprising some 150 library consortia from around the world, which in turn negotiate big deals with publishers on a national, regional or subject basis. 15 A key initiative in this area is the Sponsoring Consortium for Open Access Publishing in Particle Physics (SCOAP3) led by the European Organisation for Nuclear Research (CERN). SCOAP3 is a steadily growing consortium of funding agencies, laboratories, and national and international libraries and library consortia in the area of high-energy physics. In the SCOAP3 model, high energy physics funding agencies and libraries, which today purchase journal subscriptions individually, will negotiate with and centrally pay publishers for their services. Articles published via this model will be open access. SCOAP3 currently counts over 100 members from 21 countries including 14 EU Member States.

- working towards the interoperability of repositories of scientific information in Member States Responses received from AT, BE, BG, CH, CY, DE, DK, EE, EL, ES, FI, FR, IE, IS, IT, LT, LV, MT, NL, NO, PL, PT, RO, SK, UK One of the most noteworthy efforts in this area is the EU co-funded project DRIVER (Digital Repository Infrastructure Vision for European Research) pursuing the objective to create a cohesive, robust and flexible, pan-European infrastructure for digital repositories. The current DRIVER consortium is composed of 13 universities, libraries and research centres in 11 Member States. A further European level initiative is the e- Infrastructure Reflection Group (e-IRG), a high level European group founded to define and recommend best practices for the pan-European electronic infrastructure efforts with a focus on grid computing, storage, and networking. It consists of official government delegates from all the EU countries. A further important area of e-infrastructure is the search for common formats. Especially noteworthy in this context are the Common European Research Information Format (CERIF), and euroCRIS (European Current Research Information Systems). CERIF is a set of guidelines meant for all actors dealing with research information systems. They were first developed in 1991 (updated in 2000) by a group of EU Member State and Associated country experts under the co-ordination of the European Commission. The goal of CERIF, which is now promoted by the euroCRIS group, is to facilitate access to and exploitation of research information. A recent co-ordination initiative aims to establish a not-for-profit agency enabling organisations to register research datasets and assign persistent identifiers to them, so that research datasets can be handled as independent, citable, unique scientific objects. This agency will start by promoting the use of Digital Object Identifiers (DOI) for datasets. A Digital Object Identifier (DOI) is used to cite and link to electronic resources and differs from other reference systems commonly used on the Internet, such as the URL, since it is permanently linked to the object itself, not just to the place in which the object is located. This initiative, launched by a Memorandum of Understanding signed in March 2009, brings together major research and technical information providers in Germany (National Library of Science and Technology, TIB), the UK (British Library), Switzerland (Library of the Swiss Federal Institute of Technology, ETHZ), France (French Institute for Scientific and Technical Information, INIST), Denmark (Technical Information Center of Denmark) and the Netherlands (Technical University Delft Library). An important coordination effort in the area of preservation is the Alliance for Permanent Access created in 2004 and aiming to develop a shared vision and framework for a sustainable organisational infrastructure for permanent access to

16 scientific information. This alliance counts 15 members including European and international funding bodies, libraries and associations. Some of the members of the Alliance for Permanent Access are part of the EU-funded project PARSE.Insight (Permanent Access to the Records of Science in Europe) aiming to develop recommendations for developing the e-infrastructure to maintain the long-term accessibility and usability of scientific digital information in Europe.

VII. LONG TERM PRESERVATION (QUESTIONNAIRE SECTION D) Summary This section of the questionnaire deals with digital preservation policies regarding scientific information. It raises two specific questions regarding Member States' implementation, taking into account scientific information specifically, of the Commission Recommendation of 24 August 2006 and the Council Conclusions of 13 November 2006 on online accessibility to cultural material and digital preservation. While many of the responding countries have put in place strategies regarding digital preservation of cultural heritage in general, specific attention to the preservation of scientific information needs to be further developed within most existing national policies and legislative frameworks. Some countries have developed high level strategies, but they have not yet been put into practice convincingly and researchers are not yet sufficiently aware of preservation as a key issue in this area. More awareness is needed regarding the preservation of scientific information articles and data in order to prevent a serious loss of scientific information in the long term.

Overview of individual replies Please describe whether and how your Member State has defined a structured approach to the long term preservation of scientific information and incorporated this approach in national plans for digital preservation (in line with Commission Recommendation of 24 August 2006 and Council Conclusions of 13 November 2006 on online accessibility to cultural material and digital preservation) (question No. 9) Responses received from AT, BE, CZ, MT, CH, BG, CY, DE, DK, EE, EL, ES, FI, FR, PL, IE, IS, IT, LT, LU, NL, PT, RO, SK, UK In Belgium, the 2nd phase of the Digitisation Plan of the federal scientific and cultural institutions will devote more attention to the long-term preservation of scientific data and collections. The federal institutions will also try to participate in European projects in collaboration with other similar institutions in order to create joint central repositories. The Czech Republic is preparing a broad concept covering digitisation, long-term preservation of and access to the entire national cultural heritage in digital form. One national portal will provide users with access to Czech national cultural heritage covering library documents, archival documents, museum collections, architectonic monuments, performing arts and media. In Denmark, there is a well-established deposit law. All research publications including electronic publications have to be deposited at the National Libraries. Also, the Royal Library and The State and University Library are involved in the EU co-funded project PLANETS (Preservation and Long-term Access through Networked Services), which addresses core digital preservation challenges. Its primary goal is to build practical services and tools to help ensure long-term access to digital cultural and scientific assets. In Estonia, there are several regulations and initiatives concerning data preservation and 17 plans for digitisation of cultural heritage; however, there are no clearly defined and structured links between the long term preservation of scientific information and national plans for digital preservation. In Finland, work on long term preservation of materials of national memory organizations (libraries, museums and archives), including digital material, is on-going under the auspices of the Ministry of Educations National Digital Library project. In France, in 2007, the Ministry of Research and Higher Education placed the responsibility for the long term preservation of scientific information under the supervision of the National computing centre for higher education (CINES). This centre provides for the scientific community of higher education and public research, computing solutions for high performance computing and long term data preservation. In Lithuania, a discussion on digital preservation is underway; a feasibility study “Long term preservation of electronic documents” was prepared by Vilnius University. In Germany, the Ministry for Education and Research funded the project NESTOR (Network of Expertise in long-term Storage and availability of digital Resources in Germany), in which libraries, museums and archives joined forces to define common approaches to numerous aspects of long-term preservation. In addition, the Alliance of German Science Organisations sets digital preservation as one of its priorities. In Luxembourg, several institutions are currently setting up multi-site, replicated storage systems in order to capture and archive digital-born content. In Portugal, the Open Access Scientific Repository assures the long term preservation of its contents. In Spain, the Ministry of Culture, via the National Library and the Directorate General of Books, Archives and Libraries, has started work to raise awareness on digital preservation. A plan for the preservation of Spanish digital heritage is forthcoming. The UK Government works with partners including JISC, the British Library, the National Archives, and the Research Councils to ensure a coherent UK approach to preservation and curation. The Office of Science & Innovation (OSI) report on e-infrastructure was published in February 2007 and Research Councils UK is co- ordinating the responses to the report's recommendations. An important initiative in this area is the Digital Curation Centre which is currently focusing on scientific data.

Please describe whether and how the specific characteristics of scientific information have been taken into account when setting up the legislative framework (including legal deposit) or practical set-up for digital preservation (question No. 10) Responses received from AT, BE, DE, EE, EL, ES, FI, IT, IS, NL, PL, PT, RO, UK In Austria, the media law was amended in 2009 to enable the Austrian National Library to collect media like websites. In Belgium, there is no legislation for digital preservation apart from the Copyright Act; however, a solution is being sought to allow for preservation, especially in the case of orphan works. Consultations on the issues of copyright have been taking place with the Belgian intellectual property office since 2007. In Finland, the Law on Collecting and Preserving Cultural Materials took effect in January 2008. It repeals the earlier Legal Deposit Act, as well as the Act on the Archiving of Films. The new act covers Finnish on-line publications as well as film, radio and television materials, in addition to printed publications and recordings. The National Library receives free copies of all Finnish printed publications, sound, image and CD-ROM recordings and on line-publications. Germany features a legal deposit law for all digital publications originating in Germany since 2006, and the German National Library is responsible for long-term archiving. In Greece, discussions are underway on 18 adapting the existing legal framework for intellectual property rights to the open access and information society era. In Italy, as far as legal deposit is concerned, some jurisdiction has been transferred to the regions which legislate autonomously. The Open Access CRUI Working Group is working with the National libraries of Rome and Florence to implement a framework for legal deposit of PhD Theses in Institutional repositories. Universities are also working with archivists to define a metadata set and a suitable workflow for long term preservation. In the Netherlands, by law, the Royal Library has an e-depot for all national and international scientific and cultural publications, as the Royal Library is one of the two designated safe places for scientific publications in the world. In Romania, the current legal deposit law includes doctoral theses but not online publications. This law is currently being reviewed by the Ministry of Communications and Information Technology. A new legal deposit law will make reference to digital preservation and will take an e-repository type approach. In the UK, The Legal Deposit Library Advisory panel, established to recommend regulations for the implementation of the Legal Deposit Libraries Act, is considering as a priority the legal deposit of e- journals. A voluntary pilot scheme is in progress involving publishers and the deposit libraries, which will inform the panel on the factors that will need to be addressed within a regulation.

VIII. ROLE OF THE EUROPEAN COMMISSION (QUESTIONNAIRE SECTION E) Summary Respondents to this question were generally favourable regarding current European Commission activities regarding access to, and dissemination and preservation of digital scientific information. They also welcome future activity, and in particular recommend (continued) support and action in the following areas: - Encouraging coordination and cooperation of Member State policies - Supporting the further development of a pan-European e-Infrastructure - Developing principles on access and dissemination for future EU-funded research, including funding projects experimenting with open access and new publishing business models - Developing EU copyright rules for research - Supporting provision of access to scientific knowledge produced in developing countries

Overview of individual replies Please describe the role that you see for the European Commission / European Union in terms of policies on access to, and dissemination and preservation of scientific information in the digital age. Responses: AT, BE, CY, DE, DK, EE, EL, ES, FR, FI, PL, IS, IT; LT, LV, MT, NL, PT, RO, SK, TR, UK Respondents outlined the following future roles for the Commission/European Union: • Encouraging and stimulating the coordination and cooperation of Member State policies on access, dissemination and preservation: 19 – Monitor and evaluate relevant policies and activities in the Member States – Stimulate exchange of best practices – Support the creation of a Member State network on access, dissemination and preservation issues – Provide specific recommendations and a timeframe

• Supporting the further development of a pan-European e-Infrastructure – Promote the use of common standards and formats for repositories (interoperability) – Evaluate quality of repository content and establish quality control mechanisms • Funding of projects experimenting with open access / new publishing business models

• Developing EU copyright rules for research

• Developing principles on access and dissemination for future EU-funded research (including joint programming, research infrastructures, mobility)

• Supporting provision of access to scientific knowledge produced in developing countries

20

IX. ANNEX: NATIONAL AND EUROPEAN INITIATIVES (Information on national and coordinated activities is based on the additional information provided by respondents)

National information & initiatives

Austria: Open Access Policy of Austrian Science Fund: http://www.fwf.ac.at/en/public_relations/oai/index.html

Belgium: Flemish Research Libraries Council: http://www.vowb.be Electronic Scientific Libraries (ELEKTRON): http://www.vowb.be/elektron_en.html Interuniversity Library of the French Community of Belgium (BICfB): http://www.bicfb.be/ BICfB repository: http://edoc.bib.ucl.ac.be/

Bulgaria: Ministry of Education and Science: http://www.nsfb.net/ Bulgarian Current Research Information System (BulCRIS): http://www.cris.government.bg/public/Locale.do?language=en&page=/public/Main.do

Cyprus: Research Promotion Foundation: www.research.org.cy

Czech Republic: Research and Development: http://www.vyzkum.cz/Default.aspx?lang=en National Digital Library: http://www.vyzkum.cz/Default.aspx?lang=en

Denmark: Denmark's Electronic Research Library: http://www.deff.dk/default.aspx?lang=english

Estonia: Research and Development and Innovation Strategy 2007-2013 "Knowledge-Based Estonia: http://www.hm.ee/index.php?0&popup=download&id=6175 Collections of Humanities and Natural Sciences: http://www.teaduskogud.org/?&lang=en

Finland: Report of the Open Access Scientific Publishing Committee http://www.minedu.fi/OPM/Julkaisut/julkaisuhaku?lang=en 21 Ministry of Education in Finland (Research affairs): http://www.minedu.fi/OPM/Tiede/?lang=en The Finnish Social Science Data Archive (FSD): http://www.fsd.uta.fi/english/index.html Roadmap, for creating new infrastructures: http://www.minedu.fi/OPM/Tiedotteet/2009/02/Tutkimusinfrat.html?lang=en

France: French National Research Agency: http://www.agence-nationale- recherche.fr/FaitsMarquants?lngInfoId=159 Open archives initiative: http://www.couperin.org/archivesouvertes/ Open access information: http://openaccess.inist.fr/ CCSD: http://www.ccsd.cnrs.fr/spip.php?rubrique15 Hyper Article en Ligne (HAL): http://www.ccsd.cnrs.fr/spip.php?rubrique12

Germany: Alliance of German Science Organisations - Priority Initiative "Digital Information": http://www.dfg.de/forschungsfoerderung/wissenschaftliche_infrastruktur/lis/download/al lianz_initiative_digital_information_en.pdf Deutsche Initiative für Netzwerkinformationen: http://www.dini.de/ Network of expertise in Digital long-term preservation (NESTOR): http://www.langzeitarchivierung.de/index.php?newlang=eng Springer-Max Planck Society deal: http://www.mpdl.mpg.de/scip/lic/oag/Springer_oc_en.htm

Greece: Athena- Research and Innovation Center in Information, Communication and Knowledge Technologies: http://www.athena-innovation.gr GRNET Networking Research and Education: http://www.grnet.gr National documentation centre website on open access: http://www.openaccess.gr Open archives: http://www.openarchives.gr

Iceland: Science and Technology Policy Council: http://www.vt.is Centre for research: http://www.rannis.is The Icelandic Current Research Information System http://www.ris.is

Ireland: Open access policy of Science, Foundation Ireland (SFI): http://www.sfi.ie/uploads/documents/upload/SFI_OA_policy_2009_v3.pdf

22 Italy: IT: Web Site Open Access Working Group (CRUI): http://www.crui.it/HomePage.aspx?ref=894 Open Access in Italia Wiki: http://wiki.openarchives.it/index.php/Pagina_principale Creative Commons Italia: http://www.creativecommons.it/ Università Aperta: http://www.universita-aperta.it/ PLEIADI: http://www.openarchives.it/pleiadi/ CRUI-CARE: http://www.crui-care.it/ ICCU: http://www.iccu.sbn.it/genera.jsp?id=256

Latvia: Latvian National Library: www.lnb.lv Latvian Academic Library: www.acadlib.lv

Lithuania: Lithuanian Research Library Consortium: http://www.lmba.lt/OA/liet/oa.htm Ministry order regarding the establishment of Lithuanian science and study electronic documents (eLABa): http://edok.sf.library.lt/failai/Kiti_dokumentai/eLABa_eng.pdf

Luxembourg: Consortium Luxembourg pour l'acquisition et la gestion des publication numériques: http://www.portail.bnl.lu

Netherlands: Data Archiving and Networked Services (DANS): http://www.dans.knaw.nl/en/ NARCIS-gateway to Dutch scientific information: http://www.narcis.info/index Knowledge bank for universities of applied science: http://www.hbo- kennisbank.nl/en/page/page.view/hbo_about.page Royal Natherlands Academy of Arts and Sciences (KNAW): http://www.knaw.nl/english/index.html SURF: http://www.surf.nl/en/Pages/home.aspx

Norway: The Research Council Norway Open Access: http://www.forskningsradet.no/no/Artikkel/Forskningsradets+prinsipper+for+apen+tilga ng+til+vitenskapelig+publisering/1238627853241 White Paper No. 30 (2008-2009) Climate for Research http://www.regjeringen.no/kd

Poland: Ministry of Interior: www.mswia.gov.pl Ministry of Science and Higher Education: www.mnisw.gov.pl "Open a book" initiative: http://otworzksiazke.pl/ 23

Portugal: About Open Access Repositories (RCAAP): http://www.rcaap.pt/about_en.jsp Knowledge Society Agency: http://www.infosociety.gov.pt/

Romania: The National Authority for Scientific Research: http://www.mct.ro The National Institute for Information and Documentation, Bucharest: http://www.inid.ro The National Library of Romania http://www.bibnat.ro

Spain: Draft Science and Technology Law: https://lcyt.fecyt.es/wp- content/uploads/2009/02/borrador-cero-alcyt-11_02_09.pdf Resolution on the creation of the institutional repository of the Principality of Asturias: http://www.asturias.es/portal/site/Asturias/menuitem.1003733838db7342ebc4e19110000 0f7/?vgnextoid=d7d79d16b61ee010VgnVCM1000000100007fRCRD&fecha=03/02/200 9&refArticulo=2009-03201 Principality of Asturias. Governing Council Agreement “Open access” mandate: http://bibliotecas.csic.es/servicios/docs/principado.pdf Carlos III University of Madrid. Resolution of the Rector of the Carlos III University of Madrid of February 25, 2009, on the call for proposals to increase the presence of the UC3M’s research institutes and groups on the Internet: http://www.uc3m.es/portal/page/portal/investigacion/programas_convocatorias/programa _vicerrectorado_09/ayudas_web/Web.pdf General report on Spanish repositories: http://www.accesoabierto.net/sites/default/files/Informe2009-Repositorios_0.pdf

Sweden: OpenAccess.se - Scholarly Publishing: http://www.kb.se/OpenAccess/Hjalptexter/English/

Switzerland: Swiss National Science Foundation: http://www.snf.ch/E/NewsPool/Pages/news_070809_OpenAccess.aspx Swiss Federal Institute of Technology Zurich (ETHZ): http://www.open- access.ethz.ch/oazurich/index_EN University of Zurich: http://www.oai.uzh.ch/index.php?mos_lng=en

Slovakia: Central Information Portal: http://www.vedatechnika.sk

Turkey:

24 Turkey Academic Network and Information Centre: http://www.ulakbim.gov.tr/eng/cabim/about/

UK: Department for Innovation, Universities and Skills : http://www.dius.gov.uk/ Department for Business, Enterprise and Regulatory Reform: http://www.berr.gov.uk/ Digital Curation Centre: http://www.dcc.ac.uk Intellectual Property Office of the UK http://www.ipo.gov.uk/ Joint Information Systems Committee: http://www.jisc.ac.uk/ Open Access and Institutional Repositories with EPrints (University of Southhampton: http://www.eprints.org/) Research Councils UK (RCUK): http://www.rcuk.ac.uk Research Information Network (RIN): http://www.rin.ac.uk/ SHERPA (Universoty of Nottingham): http://www.sherpa.ac.uk/about.html Universities UK: http://www.universitiesuk.ac.uk

Co-ordination initiatives

Alliance for permanent Access: http://www.alliancepermanentaccess.eu/ Berlin Declaration on Open Access to Knowledge in the Sciences and Humanities: http://oa.mpg.de/openaccess-berlin/berlindeclaration.html (20-22 October 2003) European Heads of Research Councils (EUROHORCS)'s Recommendations on Open Access (OA) (18 April 2008): http://www.eurohorcs.org/SiteCollectionDocuments/EUROHORCs_Recommendations_ OpenAccess_200805.pdf e-Infrastructure Reflection Group (e-IRG): http://www.e-irg.eu/ European Research Advisory Board Final Report: Scientific Publication: Policy on Open Access (December 2006) http://ec.europa.eu/research/eurab/pdf/eurab_scipub_report_recomm_dec06_en.pdf Statement from the EUA Working Group on Open Access: http://www.eua.be/fileadmin/user_upload/files/newsletter/EUA_WG_open_access.pdf Europeana (European Digital Library): http://www.europeana.eu/ Common European Research Information Format (CERIF) / Current Research Information Systems (CRIS): http://cordis.europa.eu/cerif/, http://www.eurocris.org/ DRIVER (Digital Repository Infrastructure Vision for European Research): http://www.driver-repository.eu/ ICOLC: http://www.library.yale.edu/consortia/ Knowledge Exchange: http://www.knowledge-exchange.info/ Memorandum of understanding "European initiative to facilitate access to research data": http://www.icsti.org/documents/PressReleaseMarch2009-JointDOIforData.pdf; see also http://www.tib-hannover.de/en/the-tib/doi-registration-agency/

25 Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD)'s Principles and Guidelines for Access to Research Data from Public Funding (2007): http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/9/61/38500813.pdf Petition for guaranteed public access to publicly-funded research results: http://www.ec- petition.eu/ Permanent Access to the Records of Science in Europe (PARSE.Insight): http://www.parse-insight.eu/ Publishing and the Ecology of European Research (PEER): http://www.peerproject.eu/ Sponsoring Consortium for Open Access Publishing in Particle Physics (SCOAP3): http://scoap3.org/index.html Study of Open Access Publishing (SOAP): http://cerneu.home.cern.ch/cerneu/eu_projects/fp7/#SOAP

European Commission documents

Communication on scientific information in the digital age: access, dissemination and preservation (COM(2007)56): http://eur- lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=CELEX:52007DC0056:EN:NOT Commission Recommendation on the management of intellectual property in knowledge transfer activities and Code of Practice for universities and other public research organisations (COM(2008)1329): http://eur- lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=CELEX:32008H0416:EN:NOT Competitiveness Council adopted Conclusions on scientific information in the digital age: access, dissemination and preservation (14865/07): http://www.consilium.europa.eu/App/NewsRoom/related.aspx?id=353&lang=1&bid=88 &grp=12589&version=&from= Green Paper on "The European Research Area: New Perspectives" European Research (COM(2007)161): http://eur- lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=CELEX:52007DC0056:EN:NOT Study on the economic and technical evolution of the scientific markets in Europe: http://ec.europa.eu/research/science-society/pdf/scientific-publication-study_en.pdf

26

Open Access – What are the economic benefits? A comparison of the United Kingdom, Netherlands and Denmark

John Houghton Centre for Strategic Economic Studies Victoria University, Melbourne [email protected]

FINAL 23 June 2009

Acknowledgements The authors would like to acknowledge the support of the UK Joint Information Systems Committee (JISC) in the development of the modelling approach underpinning these studies, the SURFfoundation and DEFF for enabling its application in the Netherlands and Denmark. Thanks are due to the research team for the Netherlands project, including Jos de Jonge and Marcia van Oploo of EIM/Research voor Beleid and to the many people who assisted in both the Dutch and Danish projects. Thanks are also due to the research team from the original JISC project, including principal collaborator Charles Oppenheim of Loughborough University, Bruce Rasmussen and Peter Sheehan of The Centre for Strategic Economic Studies at Victoria University in Melbourne, and Anne Morris, Claire Creaser, Helen Greenwood, Mark Summers and Adrian Gourlay of Loughborough University, as well as members of the project advisory group.

Disclaimer While every effort has been made to ensure its accuracy, Victoria University makes no representations or warranties (express or implied) as to the accuracy or completeness of the information contained in this report. Victoria University, its employees and agents accept no liability in negligence for the information (or the use of such information) which is provided in this report.

This report has been made possible by Knowledge Exchange. Knowledge Exchange is a co-operative effort that supports the use and development of Information and Communications Technologies (ICT) infrastructure for higher education and research.

The Knowledge Exchange partners are:

• Denmark’s Electronic Research Library (DEFF) in Denmark • German Research Foundation (DFG) in Germany • Joint Information Systems Committee (JISC) in the United Kingdom • SURFfoundation in the Netherlands

www.knowledge-exchange.info

This work is licenced under a Creative Commons Attribution licence: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/

II Open Access: What are the economic benefits?

Main Points Building on previous work, this summary looks at the costs and potential benefits of alternative open access models for scholarly publishing in the UK, Netherlands and Denmark – giving a sense of the implications for one of the larger, a mid-sized and a smaller European country.

Analysis focuses on comparing three alternative models for scholarly publishing, namely: subscription publishing, open access publishing and self-archiving. To ensure that meaningful comparisons could be made, the self-archiving models explored include the peer review, certification and quality control functions necessary for formal scholarly publishing.

We estimate that in an open access world:

• Open access or ‘author-pays’ publishing for journal articles (i.e. ‘Gold OA’) might bring net system savings of around EUR 70 million per annum nationally in Denmark, EUR 133 million in the Netherlands and EUR 480 million in the UK (at 2007 prices and levels of publishing activity);

• Open access self-archiving without subscription cancellations (i.e. ‘Green OA’) might save around EUR 30 million per annum nationally for Denmark in a worldwide ‘Green OA’ system, EUR 50 million in the Netherlands and EUR 125 million in the UK; and • The open access self-archiving with overlay services model explored is necessarily more speculative, but a repositories and overlay services model may well produce similar cost savings to open access publishing. The cost-benefits of the open access or ‘author-pays’ publishing model are very similar across the three countries. In terms of estimated cost-benefits over a transitional period of 20 years, open access publishing all articles produced in universities in 2007 would have produced benefits of around 2 to 3 times the costs in all cases, but showed benefits of 5 to 6 times costs in the simulated alternative ‘steady state’ model for unilateral national open access, and benefits of around 7 times the costs in an open access world. The most obvious difference between the national results relates to the self-archiving and repositories models, which while promising substantial net benefits in all countries do not look quite as good in the Netherlands as they do in the UK, and nothing like as good as they do in Denmark. This is due to the implied number of repositories, each with operational overheads. Notwithstanding this difference, the modelling suggests that more open access alternatives are likely to be more cost-effective mechanisms for scholarly publishing in a wide range of countries (large and small), with ‘Gold OA’ open access or author-pays publishing, the deconstructed or overlay journals model of self-archiving with overlay production and review services, and ‘Green OA’ self-archiving in parallel with subscription publishing progressively more cost-effective.

[email protected]

III Table of contents

INTRODUCTION ...... 1 APPROACH AND METHODOLOGY ...... 1 DATA SOURCES AND LIMITATIONS ...... 3 SUMMARY OF COSTS...... 4 The cost of alternative models...... 5 Publisher costs per journal article...... 6 THE IMPACT OF ALTERNATIVE SCHOLARLY PUBLISHING MODELS...... 7 COMPARING COSTS AND BENEFITS ...... 12 INTERNATIONAL COMPARISONS ...... 15 CONCLUSIONS...... 16 ANNEX I MODEL PARAMETERS AND ASSUMPTIONS ...... 17 REFERENCES...... 21

IV Open Access: What are the economic benefits?

Introduction Building on previous work, this summary looks at the costs and potential benefits of alternative models for scientific and scholarly publishing in three European countries. The work began in Australia in 2006 with a study of Research Communication Costs, Emerging Opportunities and Benefits (Houghton et al. 2006). This was followed by a major study of the Economic Implications of Alternative Scholarly Publishing Models for the Joint Information Systems Committee (JISC) in the UK (Houghton et al. and Oppenheim et al. 2009). We have since applied the same basic approach to exploring the costs and benefits of alternative publishing models in the Netherlands (Houghton et al. 2009) and Denmark (Houghton 2009), giving a sense of the implications of open access scholarly publishing for one of the larger, a mid-sized and a smaller European country.

Approach and methodology The studies focus on the three alternative models for scholarly publishing, namely: subscription publishing, open access publishing and self-archiving. • Subscription publishing refers primarily to academic journal publishing and includes individual subscriptions and the, so called, Big Deal (i.e. where institutional subscribers pay for access to online aggregations of journal titles through consortial or site licensing arrangements). In a wider sense, however, subscription publishing includes any publishing business model that imposes reader access tolls and restrictions on use designed to maintain publisher control over that access in order to enable the collection of those tolls.

• Open access publishing refers primarily to journal publishing where access is free of charge to readers, and the authors, their employing or funding organisations pay for publication; or other sponsors support the publication making it free to both readers and authors. Use restrictions can be minimal as no access toll is imposed.

• Open access self-archiving refers to the situation where authors deposit their work in online open access institutional or subject-based repositories, making it freely available to anyone with internet access. Again, use restrictions can be minimal as no access toll is imposed. As self-archiving, of itself, does not constitute formal publication analysis focuses on two publishing models in which self-archiving is supplemented by the peer review and production activities necessary for formal publishing, namely: (i) ‘Green OA’ self-archiving operating in parallel with subscription publishing; and (ii) the ‘deconstructed’ or ‘overlay journals’ model in which self-archiving provides the foundation for overlay journals and services (e.g. peer review, branding and quality control services). Hence, each of the publishing models explored includes all of the key functions of scholarly publishing, including peer review and quality control (i.e. registration, certification, dissemination / awareness, and preservation).

1 A comparison of the United Kingdom, Netherlands and Denmark

Phase I: Identifying costs and benefits The first phase of the JISC study sought to identify all the dimensions of cost and potential benefit associated with each of the models, and examine which of the main players in the scholarly communication system would be affected and how they would be affected by the adoption of alternative publishing models. In order to provide a solid foundation for analysis we developed and extended the scholarly communication life-cycle model first outlined by Bo- Christer Björk (2007). The scholarly communication process model developed for the JISC study included five core scholarly communication process activities, namely: (i) Fund research and research communication;

(ii) Perform research and communicate the results;

(iii) Publish scientific and scholarly works; (iv) Facilitate dissemination, retrieval and preservation; and

(v) Study publications and apply the knowledge (Figure 1).

Each of these is further subdivided into a detailed description of the activities, inputs, outputs, controls and supporting mechanisms involved. This formal process modelling is used to identify activities and provide the foundation for activity costing.1

Figure 1: The scholarly communication process

C1 C2 Society needs Economic incentives IP restrictions / licensing Access to publications Commercial needs Commercial publishing considerations Copyright restrictions on reusing material Scientific/Scholarly curiosity Norms of science/scholarship Evaluation of the contribution

Public/Tax funding (Block & Competitive Grants) Funding for research and communication Fund R&D and Commercial, government or NGO funding (Contract) communication Donations and Philanthropic Grants A1

Existing knowledge Perform New knowledge I1 research and O2 communicate Scientific/Scholarly problems I2 results A2

Publish scientific / scholarly Scientific / scholarly publications works A3

Facilitate dissemination, Disseminated scientific knowledge retrieval and preservation A4

Study Improved quality of life publication and O1 apply knowledge New knowledge & greater awareness A5

Companies, government & non-government organisations Stakeholders in R&D process Commercial, society or institutional publisher Philanthropic funders Libraries Research Councils Researchers Infomediaries M1

Source: JISC EI-ASPM Process Model (http://www.cfses.com/EI-ASPM/SCLCM-V7/).

1 Details of the entire model can be found on the Web at http://www.cfses.com/EI-ASPM/SCLCM-V7/.

2 Open Access: What are the economic benefits?

Phase II: Quantifying costs and benefits The second phase of the JISC study sought to quantify the costs and benefits, identify and where possible quantify the cost and benefit implications for each of the main players in the scholarly communication system and, as far as possible, compare the costs and benefits of the three models. There are three elements to our approach to quantifying costs and benefits:

• First, we explore the costs of individual process activities and then sum them to estimate system-wide costs. From this we can see cost differences and direct cost savings.

• Second, we present cases and scenarios to explore the potential cost savings resulting from alternative publishing models (i.e. looking at impacts on search and discovery, library handling costs, etc.). From this we can explore indirect cost differences and savings.

• Third, we approach the issue from the top down and model the impact of changes in accessibility and efficiency on returns to R&D using a Solow-Swan model, into which we introduce accessibility and efficiency as negative or friction variables to reflect the fact that there are limits and barriers to access and to the efficiency of production and usefulness of knowledge (Houghton and Sheehan 2006; 2009). A full description of the modelling approach and details of its operationalisation can be found in the JISC Project Report (Houghton et al. and Oppenheim et al. 2009) (http://www.cfses.com/EI- ASPM/).

Data sources and limitations There are two elements to the activity cost modelling, namely (i) local national variables, and (ii) more generic activity costings. While there are important structural differences between national research and scholarly communication systems, research is a global activity and many research-related and scholarly publishing activities are common across countries. Consequently, for preliminary estimations, it is possible to use international sources on research and publishing activities where no local sources exist. Nevertheless, more information on local publishing costs would be helpful in informing us as to the need to adjust for local costs structures (e.g. due to publication in local languages and implied shorter print runs and fewer subscribers, publication in multiple languages adding translation and additional production costs, possibly higher international distribution costs, etc.). To the extent that such factors add to the costs of publishing in the Netherlands and Denmark, the publisher cost estimates herein should be taken as something closer to lower bound estimates. Details of author-pays fees are sourced from a sample of open access journal publishers. The activities of dissemination, retrieval and preservation, most notably those of research and special libraries, exhibit greater variation between countries. There are good statistical collections for the major public sector research and university libraries in most countries, but we

3 A comparison of the United Kingdom, Netherlands and Denmark lack information about other research and special libraries outside the university sector. In the absence of detailed local information about activity costs, research library activity costings can be no more than first approximations based on international activity studies, with activity times translated to local costs using average library staff salaries. Moreover, as electronic journals become the norm and e-book collections are emerging library handling activities are changing rapidly, making data from 2004 no more than an approximate guide to library activities. Cost and operational data relating to repositories are highly varied, but there are sufficient data for preliminary estimation from international studies as well as local sources. Drawing on these sources provides sufficient data for preliminary estimation.

Summary of costs Drawing on a wide range of data sources, activity surveys and tracking studies we estimate costs for activities throughout the scholarly communication process at the national level and for higher education in each of the countries. All data are standardised on 2007 prices and levels of activity and are expressed in Euros using annual average exchange rates.

Reading scholarly publications is a major activity and reading by those actively publishing (i.e. approximating reading in order to write) may have cost from EUR 885 million in Denmark to more than EUR 4 billion in the UK during 2007. The peer review of scholarly journal articles and books conducted by researchers on behalf of publishers (i.e. external peer review activities) probably cost from EUR 50 million to EUR 300 million, and the external journal editorial and editorial board activities of researchers from EUR 20 million to EUR 100 million. We estimate that publisher costs relating to locally authored publications probably ranged from EUR 105 million in Denmark to EUR 840 million in the UK (excluding the external costs noted above). Summing these costs suggests that core scholarly publishing system activities may cost around EUR 1.5 billion per annum in Denmark, EUR 2.4 billion in the Netherlands and EUR 7.8 billion in the UK (Table 1).

Table 1: Estimated annual national scholarly communication activity costs (EUR, circa 2007) Denmark Netherlands UK Reading (Published Staff) 884,000,000 1,032,700,000 4,056,800,000 Writing (WoK based estimate) 367,800,000 918,900,000 2,338,600,000 Peer Review (Scaled to publication counts) 52,400,000 115,900,000 296,500,000 Editorial activities (Scaled to published staff) 20,700,000 24,400,000 93,000,000 Editorial board activities (Scaled to published staff) 2,300,000 2,700,000 10,200,000 Preparing Grant Applications (Research Councils) 31,600,000 53,800,000 171,800,000 Reviewing Grant Applications (Research Councils) 1,000,000 4,200,000 27,200,000 Publisher Costs (Scaled to publication counts) 104,600,000 210,800,000 839,000,000 Total National System 1,464,300,000 2,363,500,000 7,833,200,000 Source: EI-ASPM model: Author’s analysis.

Table 2 summarises these same scholarly communication activity costs for higher education (i.e. the universities). Summing these costs suggests that core scholarly publishing system activities

4 Open Access: What are the economic benefits? may have cost Denmark’s universities around EUR 1.2 billion, the Netherlands’ universities around EUR 2 billion and UK higher education around EUR 7 billion.

Table 2: Estimated annual higher education scholarly communication activity costs (EUR, circa 2007) Denmark Netherlands UK Reading (Published Staff) 673,400,000 805,000,000 3,575,800,000 Writing (WoK based estimate) 336,700,000 856,400,000 2,125,500,000 Peer Review (Scaled to publication counts) 47,800,000 105,200,000 261,100,000 Editorial activities (Scaled to published staff) 15,100,000 18,300,000 80,300,000 Editorial board activities (Scaled to published staff) 1,700,000 2,000,000 8,900,000 Preparing Grant Applications (Research Councils) 24,300,000 43,100,000 160,100,000 Reviewing Grant Applications (Research Councils) 800,000 3,400,000 25,300,000 Publisher Costs (Scaled to publication counts) 96,200,000 194,900,000 756,200,000 Total National System 1,196,000,000 2,028,400,000 6,993,400,000 Source: EI-ASPM model: Author’s analysis.

The cost of alternative models Our analysis focuses on three alternative models for scholarly publishing, namely: subscription publishing, open access publishing and self-archiving. Table 3 summarises costs relating to each of these models. Subscription and toll access publishing acquisitions cost university libraries around EUR 13 million in Denmark, EUR 47 million in the Netherlands and EUR 300 million in the UK. Negotiation of subscriptions and licensing, access control and other library handling relating to the subscription or toll access model also accounted for a substantial share of library non- acquisition costs.

Table 3: Estimated annual higher education scholarly communication related costs by model (EUR, circa 2007)

Denmark Netherlands UK Library Acquisition (University) 12,600,000 46,500,000 299,400,000 Library non-Acquisition (University) 31,400,000 85,400,000 573,900,000 Author-pays fees for all journal articles (OA publishing) 30,400,000 55,700,000 215,600,000 Repository Costs (OA self-archiving) 1,200,000 9,400,000 26,500,000 Source: EI-ASPM model: Author’s analysis.

Open access publishing all university journal article output in 2007 under the ‘author-pays’ model would have cost around EUR 30 million in Denmark, EUR 56 million in the Netherlands and EUR 215 million in the UK (at around EUR 2,200 per article published).

Open access self-archiving costs are based on estimated repository costs, which are necessarily no more than approximate. Nevertheless, we estimate that a system of institutional repositories in higher education in which every institution had one publications-oriented repository and all

5 A comparison of the United Kingdom, Netherlands and Denmark publications were self-archived once would cost around EUR 1.2 million per annum in Denmark, EUR 9.4 million in the Netherlands and EUR 26 million in the UK (at 2007 prices and levels of publication output).

Publisher costs per journal article

One key challenge is to separate the cost impacts of publishing models from those of publishing format, so we can explore the cost differences between subscription and open access publishing models independent of differences between print and electronic production formats. Our approach is to estimate costs for print, dual-mode (i.e. parallel print and electronic) and electronic-only formats for subscription and open access business models, and then to compare subscription and open access models as if they were all electronic or ‘e-only’. All costings include commercial publisher margins.

Figure 2: Estimated average publisher costs per article by format and model (EUR, circa 2007)

Full service overlay (per article)

Open Access E-ONLY

Open Access DUAL-MODE

Open Access PRINT

Subscription E-ONLY

Subscription DUAL-MODE

Subscription PRINT

€ 0 € 500 € 1,000 € 1,500 € 2,000 € 2,500 € 3,000 € 3,500 € 4,000 € 4,500 € 5,000

Note: These costs exclude the external costs of peer review and VAT. Overlay services include operating peer review management, editing, proofing and hosting, with commercial margins. Estimates for print and dual-mode open access publishing exclude copy print and delivery related costs, assuming that the content is produced print ready and print is an add-on. Source: EI-ASPM model: Author’s analysis.

For subscription publishing, we estimate an average publisher cost of around EUR 4,750 per article for dual-mode production, EUR 3,990 per article for print only production and EUR

6 Open Access: What are the economic benefits?

3,420 per article for e-only production (excluding the costs associated with external peer review and Value-Added Tax) (Figure 2).2 For open access publishing, we estimate average per article costs at EUR 2,230 for e-only production. Excluding the costs of copy printing and delivery, we estimate the cost of dual- mode open access publishing at around EUR 2,930 per article and print only open access publishing at EUR 2,680 per article.3 Indicatively, if printing and delivery costs were the same as subscription publishing, they might add around EUR 395 per article. We include the implied publisher costs of overlay services to open access self-archiving (i.e. the overlay services model), with the same commercial management, investment and profit margins applied. This suggests that operating peer review management, editing, production and proofing as an overlay service would cost around EUR 1,650 per article excluding hosting, or EUR 1,845 including hosting.

The impact of alternative scholarly publishing models Summing the costs of production, publishing and dissemination per article in electronic-only format suggests that:

• Average subscription publishing system costs would amount to between EUR 12,128 per article in the UK and EUR 17,046 in the Netherlands (excluding Value-Added Tax); • Average open access publishing costs would amount to between EUR 10,940 and EUR 15,857 per article; and • Average open access self-archiving costs would amount to between EUR 10,398 and EUR 15,331 per article (including overlay review and production services with commercial margins). These system cost differences are due primarily to research and researcher cost differences between the countries, as well as some minor differences in the date of the data and methods for estimating full costs.4

2 These publisher costs are derived from those reported in the UK JISC EI-ASPM study, and are converted to Euros at 2007 annual average exchange rates. 3 It is impossible to estimate the cost of printing and delivery in open access publishing as it depends on the number of copies involved, and in the absence of subscriber counts that number cannot be known. Therefore, estimates for print and dual-mode open access publishing exclude actual copy print and delivery related costs, assuming that the content is produced print ready and print is an add-on. 4 In addition to cost differences between the countries, there are minor differences in the methods used to estimate full cost. For example, in the UK we used the official higher education research costing methodology (TRAC fEC), for the Netherlands we used an averaged GERD/FTE researchers triangulating with a variation of a full cost model from the University of Amsterdam, and in Denmark we used a simple HERD/FTE researchers. Minor differences between these methods relate primarily to the inclusion or exclusion of the technicians counted among research personnel as a part of the overheads. Moreover, some UK R&D data relate to 2006, whereas data for the Netherlands and Denmark are from 2007.

7 A comparison of the United Kingdom, Netherlands and Denmark

At these costs, open access publishing would be around EUR 1,190 per article cheaper than subscription publishing, and open access self-archiving with overlay services around EUR 1,730 per article cheaper (Figure 3).

Figure 3: Scholarly communication system costs per article (EUR, circa 2007)

UNITED KINGDOM

Subscription publishing

Open access publishing

Self-archiving with overlay services

NETHERLANDS

Subscription publishing

Open access publishing

Self-archiving with overlay services

DENMARK

Subscription publishing

Open access publishing

Self-archiving with overlay services

€ 0 € 2,000 € 4,000 € 6,000 € 8,000 € 10,000 € 12,000 € 14,000 € 16,000 € 18,000

Note: Includes the direct costs of writing, peer review, publishing and disseminating in e-only format, and excludes VAT. Self-archiving includes publisher production and review costs, including commercial margins (i.e. overlay services). Source: EI-ASPM model: Author’s analysis.

In addition to these direct cost differences there are potential system cost savings. In highly simplified form, the following figures summarise the estimated national impacts in each country of unilateral national and worldwide adoption of alternative open access journal/article publishing models, including: (i) ‘Green OA’ self-archiving in parallel with subscription publishing; (ii) ‘Gold OA’ or author-pays journal publishing; and (iii) the ‘deconstructed’ or ‘overlay journals’ model of self-archiving with overlay services. Reported increased returns to R&D expenditure are for public sector and higher education R&D spending, and are expressed as an annual increase in current values (Box 1).5 As many of the potential cost savings cannot be fully realised unless there is worldwide adoption of open access alternatives, in the unilateral national open access scenarios funder,

5 Increased returns are recurring gains from one year’s R&D expenditure. Such returns can be expressed in Net Present Value, lagged and recurring over the useful life of the knowledge. For the sake of simplicity and transparency in these charts we have simply taken the original value of annual returns as indicative. In the cost-benefit comparisons presented below, however, returns are reported in Net Present Value and lagged.

8 Open Access: What are the economic benefits? research, library handling and subscription cost savings are scaled to the country’s article output (i.e. are in proportion to the share of worldwide journal literature that would be open access as a result of the unilateral adoption of alternative open access models in that country). In the ‘Green OA’ model self-archiving operates in parallel with subscription publishing, so there are no publisher, library handling or subscription cost savings. As increased returns to R&D are diffuse and occur throughout the economy they cannot be considered a part of the internal scholarly communication system cost-benefits, so we separate modelled increases in returns to R&D resulting from enhanced access from the cost impacts and present the net scholarly publishing system cost impacts of the alternative publishing models. Where net cost is negative it represents a saving, and where positive it represents a cost (i.e. effectively, the investment required to obtain the increased returns and realise the benefits).

Box 1: Estimating the impacts of enhanced access on returns to R&D To explore the impacts of enhanced access on social returns to R&D we modify a basic Solow- Swan model, by introducing accessibility and efficiency as negative or friction variables, and then calculating the impact on returns to R&D of reducing the friction by increasing accessibility and efficiency (Houghton and Sheehan 2006; 2009). We find that with a 20% return to publicly funded R&D, for the major categories of research expenditure in 2006-2007, a 5% increase in accessibility and efficiency would have been worth: • EUR 78 million per annum in increased returns to public sector R&D in the Netherlands, EUR 40 million per annum in Denmark and EUR 250 million per annum in the UK; and • EUR 53 million per annum in increased returns to higher education R&D in the Netherlands, EUR 33 million per annum in Denmark and EUR 180 million per annum in the UK.6 These are recurring annual gains from the effect of one year’s R&D expenditure, so if the change that brings the increases in accessibility and efficiency is permanent they can be converted to growth rate effects.

Note: Estimates of the returns to R&D are based on aggregates, such as national or public sector expenditure, for which they can be reasonably accurate. Their application specific fields of research and smaller aggregations, perhaps even smaller countries, will be subject to greater uncertainty and should be treated with caution.

We estimate that in an open access world: • Open access self-archiving without subscription cancellations (i.e. ‘Green OA’) would save around EUR 30 million per annum nationally for Denmark, EUR 50 million in the Netherlands and EUR 125 million in the UK (Figure 4).

• ‘Gold OA’ open access publishing for journal articles using author-pays might bring net system savings of around EUR 70 million per annum nationally in Denmark, EUR

6 The rationale behind the use of a 20% return to R&D and a 5% increase in accessibility and efficiency is discussed in detail in the JISC EI-ASPM Report (Houghton et al. and Oppenheim et al. 2009, pp193-208). See http://www.cfses.com/EI-ASPM/.

9 A comparison of the United Kingdom, Netherlands and Denmark

133 million in the Netherlands and EUR 480 million in the UK (at 2007 prices and levels of publishing activity) (Figure 5). • The open access self-archiving with overlay services model explored is necessarily more speculative, but a repositories and overlay services model may well produce similar cost savings to open access publishing (Figure 6).

Figure 4: Estimated impact of “Green OA” self-archiving (EUR millions per annum, circa 2007)

€ 500

Repository Costs

€ 400 Increased Returns

€ 300 Subscription Costs

Library Savings € 200

Publisher Savings € 100

Research Savings

€ 0 Funder Savings Benefit 70m Benefit 40m Benefit 129m Benefit 68m Benefit 377m Benefit 232m (Net Cost -29m) (Net Cost (Net Cost -50m) (Net Cost 11m) (Net Cost -126m) (Net Cost 19m) -€ 100 Denmark Denmark Netherlands Netherlands United United (Worldwide) (National) (Worldwide) (National) Kingdom Kingdom (Worldwide) (National)

Source: EI-ASPM model: Author’s analysis.

These savings can be set against the cost of open access journal/article publishing alternatives, which if all journal articles encountered author fees of around EUR 2,200 per article published would have been around EUR 33 million nationally in Denmark in 2007, EUR 63 million in the Netherlands and EUR 250 million in the UK. Similarly, estimated repository costs would have been around EUR 2 million nationally in Denmark, EUR 12 million in the Netherlands and EUR 32 million in the UK. Thus, in an open access world, the cost savings alone are likely to be sufficient to pay for open access journal publishing or self-archiving with overlay services, independent of any possible increase in returns to R&D that might arise from enhanced accessibility.

10 Open Access: What are the economic benefits?

Figure 5: Estimated impact of “Gold OA” publishing (EUR millions per annum, circa 2007)

€ 1,000

Author Fees

€ 800

Increased Returns

€ 600

Subscription Costs

€ 400 Library Savings

€ 200 Publisher Savings

€ 0 Research Savings

-€ 200 Funder Savings Benefit 111m Benefit 60m Benefit 211m Benefit 115m Benefit 731m Benefit 420m (Net Cost -70m)(Net Cost -19m) (Net Cost -133m) (Net Cost -37m) (Net Cost - (Net Cost -169m) -€ 400 Denmark Denmark Netherlands Netherlands United United (Worldwide) (National) (Worldwide) (National) Kingdom Kingdom (Worldwide) (National)

Source: EI-ASPM model: Author’s analysis.

Figure 6: Estimated impact of OA self-archiving with overlay production and peer review services (EUR millions per annum, circa 2007)

€ 1,000

€ 900 Services Costs

€ 800 Repository Costs € 700

€ 600 Increased Returns

€ 500 Subscription Costs € 400

€ 300 Library Savings

€ 200 Publisher Savings € 100

€ 0 Research Savings -€ 100

-€ 200 Benefit 118m Benefit 67m Benefit 215m Benefit 119m Benefit 761m Benefit 450m Funder Savings (Net Cost -77m) (Net Cost -26m) (Net Cost -137m) (Net Cost -41m) (Net Cost -510m) (Net Cost -199m) -€ 300 Denmark Denmark Netherlands Netherlands United United (Worldwide) (National) (Worldwide) (National) Kingdom Kingdom (Worldwide) (National)

Source: EI-ASPM model: Author’s analysis.

11 A comparison of the United Kingdom, Netherlands and Denmark

Comparing costs and benefits Modelling the impacts of an increase in accessibility and efficiency resulting from more open access on returns to R&D over a 20 year period, and then comparing costs and benefits, we find that the benefits of open access publishing models are likely to substantially outweigh the costs.

First, we explore the cost-benefit implications of simply adding open access publishing and self- archiving to current activities, all other things remaining the same (i.e. ceteris paribus scenarios).7 Then we explore the implications of open access publishing and self-archiving as alternatives to current activities, by adding the estimated system savings to estimated increases in returns to R&D (i.e. net cost scenarios). These cost-benefit comparisons suggest that the additional returns to R&D resulting from enhanced accessibility and efficiency alone would be sufficient to cover the costs of parallel open access self-archiving without subscription cancellations (i.e. ‘Green OA’). When estimated savings are added to generate net costs there is a substantial increase in the benefit/cost ratios, and for both open access publishing and self-archiving alternatives (i.e. ‘Gold OA’ and ‘Green OA’) the benefits exceed the costs, even in transition. Indicative modelling of post-transition ‘steady-state’ alternative systems (Box 2) suggests that, once established, alternative open access publishing and/or self-archiving systems would produce substantially greater net benefits. During a transitional period we estimate that, in an Open Access world:

• The combined cost savings and benefits from increased returns to R&D resulting from open access publishing all journal articles produced would be around 3 times the costs;

• The combined cost savings and benefits from open access self-archiving in parallel with subscription publishing (i.e. ‘Green OA’) would be between 7 and 27 times the costs; and

• The combined cost savings and benefits from open access self-archiving with overlay production and review services (i.e. ‘overlay journals’) would be around 4 times the costs. Indicative modelling of post-transition ‘steady-state’ alternative systems returns benefits of around 7 to 9 times costs for open access publishing and self-archiving with overlay services, and more than 30 times the costs for the ‘Green OA’ self-archiving model (Table 4).

7 Of course, the scenario adding open access publishing to current activities is ‘unrealistic’, as parallel publishing all articles in open access and subscription journals simultaneously would not be possible given the copyright demands of subscription publishing.

12 Open Access: What are the economic benefits?

Box 2: A brief description of the returns to R&D model Main characteristics: A spreadsheet model to estimate the impacts of increases in accessibility and efficiency on returns to R&D over 20 years in a 20 by 20 matrix, with three data inputs: (i) R&D expenditure, (ii) annual costs associated with the publishing model, and (iii) annual savings resulting from the publishing model (in the net cost scenarios only). Assumptions and parameters: All the parameters can be changed in order to explore various scenarios and test sensitivities. Key parameters include: (i) the rate of social return to R&D, (ii) the rate of depreciation of the underlying stock of knowledge, (iii) the discount rate applied to costs and benefits to estimate net present value, (iv) the rate of growth of R&D expenditure, (v) the rate of growth of costs associated with the alternative publishing scenario being explored, (vi) the average lag between publication or self-archiving and returns to R&D in years, and (vii) the average lag between R&D expenditure and publication in years (See Annex I for details). Transition versus ‘steady-state’ alternative: Because of the lag between research expenditure and the realisation of economic and social returns to that research, the impact on returns to R&D is lagged (by 10 years in the transitional scenario) and the value of those returns is discounted accordingly. This reflects that fact that a shift to open access publishing or self-archiving would be prospective and not retrospective, and the economic value of impacts of enhanced accessibility and efficiency would not be reflected in returns to R&D until those returns were realised. An alternative approach would be to model a hypothetical alternative ‘steady-state’ system for alternative publishing models in which the benefits of historical increases in accessibility and efficiency enter the model in year one. This would reflect the situation in an alternative system, after the transition had worked through and was no longer affecting returns to R&D. The model used herein focuses on the transition and explores alternative models through a series of scenarios over a 20 year transitional period. However, the possible impacts in a hypothetical ‘steady-state’ alternative system are explored indicatively by introducing the estimated annual increase in returns into year one. This effectively removes the lag, but is no more than indicative because it does not include the recurring gains from historical expenditures occurring before year one.

Source: Houghton, J.W., Rasmussen, B., Sheehan, P.J., Oppenheim, C., Morris, A., Creaser, C., Greenwood, H., Summers, M. and Gourlay, A. (2009) Economic Implications of Alternative Scholarly Publishing Models: Exploring the Costs and Benefits, London & Bristol: The Joint Information Systems Committee (JISC), p211.

This preliminary analysis of the potential benefits of more open access to research findings suggests that different publishing models can make a material difference to the benefits realised, as well as the costs faced. It seems likely that more open access would have substantial net benefits in the longer term and, while net benefits may be lower during a transitional period they are likely to be positive for both open access publishing and self-archiving alternatives (i.e. Gold OA) and for parallel subscription publishing and self-archiving (i.e. Green OA).

13 A comparison of the United Kingdom, Netherlands and Denmark

Table 4: Summary of benefit/cost comparisons by scenario and model over 20 years (benefit/cost ratio) Scenario Denmark Netherlands UK Ceteris Paribus Scenarios Transitional Model: OA Publishing in HE (unrealistic) 0.4 0.4 0.3 OA Publishing Nationally (unrealistic) 0.5 0.6 0.4 OA Self-archiving in HE 11.3 2.5 3.2 OA Self-archiving Nationally 9.4 2.9 3.6 Simulated Steady State Model: OA Publishing in HE (unrealistic) 4.9 4.4 3.8 OA Publishing Nationally (unrealistic) 5.6 5.9 4.6 OA Self-archiving in HE 126.3 26.3 36.3 OA Self-archiving Nationally 105.0 30.2 40.0 Net Cost Scenarios Scenario (Unilateral National Open Access) Transitional Model: OA Publishing in HE 2.0 2.0 2.0 OA Self-archiving in HE (Green OA) 11.5 2.6 3.6 OA Self-archiving in HE (Overlay Services) 2.6 2.2 2.3 OA Publishing Nationally 2.1 2.1 2.1 OA Self-archiving Nationally (Green OA) 9.6 3.0 4.0 OA Self-archiving Nationally (Overlay Services) 2.6 2.3 2.4 Simulated Steady State Model: OA Publishing in HE 6.4 6.0 5.5 OA Self-archiving in HE (Green OA) 126.4 26.4 36.7 OA Self-archiving in HE (Overlay Services) 8.3 6.6 6.3 OA Publishing Nationally 7.1 7.5 6.2 OA Self-archiving Nationally (Green OA) 105.2 30.3 40.4 OA Self-archiving Nationally (Overlay Services) 9.0 7.9 7.9 Scenario (Worldwide Open Access) Transitional Model: OA Publishing in HE 2.9 3.3 3.3 OA Self-archiving in HE (Green OA) 27.3 6.7 7.4 OA Self-archiving in HE (Overlay Services) 3.8 3.7 3.7 OA Publishing Nationally 3.6 3.7 3.3 OA Self-archiving Nationally (Green OA) 26.5 8.0 8.3 OA Self-archiving Nationally (Overlay Services) 4.5 3.9 3.8 Simulated Steady State Model: OA Publishing in HE 7.4 7.3 6.8 OA Self-archiving in HE (Green OA) 142.2 30.5 40.5 OA Self-archiving in HE (Overlay Services) 9.5 8.0 7.8 OA Publishing Nationally 8.7 9.0 7.5 OA Self-archiving Nationally (Green OA) 122.1 35.3 44.8 OA Self-archiving Nationally (Overlay Services) 10.9 9.6 9.3 Note: Compares open access alternatives against subscription publishing, with costs, savings and benefits expressed in Net Present Value over 20 years (EUR millions). Increased returns to R&D relate to higher education R&D expenditure (HERD) and national public expenditure on R&D (PUBRD). Source: EI-ASPM model: Author’s analysis.

14 Open Access: What are the economic benefits?

International comparisons

In exploring the potential impacts of alternative publishing models in the UK, Netherlands and Denmark differences in the modelling per se have been kept to a minimum, although some minor adjustment of the basic model to fit different national circumstances has been necessary. Nevertheless, there are a number of factors that can affect the benefit/cost ratio estimates for different countries and, thereby, the overall findings. As modelled, these include such things as: the number and size of universities and research institutions; the implied number of institutional and other repositories, each with substantial fixed costs and relatively low variable costs; the ratios of publicly funded and higher education research spending to gross national expenditure on R&D; historical and projected rates of growth of R&D spending by sector and overall; relative national and sectoral publication productivity; historical and projected growth in publication output; the mix of publication types; etc. There are also inherent data limitations that vary somewhat between the countries.

Despite these influences, the different national studies produce very similar results and exhibit broadly similar patterns within the results. The cost-benefits of the open access or ‘author-pays’ publishing model are very similar across the three countries. In terms of estimated cost-benefits over a transitional period of 20 years, open access publishing all articles produced in universities in 2007 would have produced benefits of 2 to 3 times the costs in all cases, but showed benefits of 5 to 6 times costs in the simulated alternative ‘steady state’ model for unilateral national open access, and benefits of around 7 times the costs in an open access world. The most obvious difference between these results relates to the ‘Green OA’ self-archiving and repositories model, which does not look quite as good in the Netherlands as in the UK and nothing like as good as it does in Denmark. This is due to the implied number of repositories, each with operational overheads. As modelled, the number of institutional repositories required in each country relates to the number of institutions and their operational overheads are shared across the number of articles produced and self-archived. For example, under the modelled assumptions for 2007, the Netherlands’ 86 higher education institutions’ repositories might have housed around 26,000 articles (302 each), the UK’s 168 higher education institutions’ repositories might have housed around 100,000 articles (595 each), and Denmark’s 8 universities’ repositories might have housed around 14,000 articles (1,750 each). These differences materially affect the implied per article cost of self-archiving.

Notwithstanding this difference, the modelling suggests that more open access alternatives are likely to be more cost-effective mechanisms for scholarly publishing in a wide range of countries (large and small), with ‘Gold OA’ open access or author-pays publishing, the deconstructed or overlay journals model of self-archiving with overlay production and review services, and ‘Green OA’ self-archiving in parallel with subscription publishing progressively more cost-effective.

15 A comparison of the United Kingdom, Netherlands and Denmark

Conclusions The analysis summarised in this report compares three scholarly publishing models as if they were alternatives. In reality, of course, there are a number of variations and hybrids (e.g. delayed open access, open choice/author choice, etc.) and the models co-exist in various mixes in different fields of research. Nevertheless, these three models do have some key defining characteristics, and these characteristics have cost implications for producers, intermediaries and the users and consumers of content. They also have implications for the efficiency of research, the accessibility of research findings and their impacts, and, thereby, for returns to investment in R&D. The potential cost implications for stakeholders throughout the scholarly communication system are summarised in Figures 4, 5 and 6 (above), which outline the cost implications for funders, researchers and research institutions, publishers, research and special libraries. The estimated cost-benefit of the alternative models over 20 years are summarised in Table 4 (above). Given the potential benefits, there is scope to focus initiatives on reducing the barriers to innovation in scholarly publishing models. This might involve:

• Ensuring that research reporting and evaluation is not a barrier to innovation (e.g. by developing and using metrics that support innovation in scholarly publishing, rather than relying on traditional evaluation metrics that reinforce and reward traditional publishing models and behaviours);

• Ensuring that there is funding for author or producer side fees (e.g. encouraging all research funders to make explicit provision for publication charges, and encouraging higher education and research institutions to establish funds to support publishing fees); • Encouraging and funding the further development of institutional and/or subject repositories to enable author self-archiving; and

• Supporting advocacy initiatives to inform and educate funders, researchers and research managers about the potential impacts of alternative publishing models.

There is likely to be uncertainty during the coming years as to the direction and speed of a transition towards more open access to research findings through open access publishing and/or self-archiving, if there is such a transition, and there will be difficulties in shifting budgetary allocations around the system in such a context. Moreover, some of the savings and benefits resulting from alternative publishing models cannot be realised until some time after the costs have been met. Consequently, it seems inevitable that central allocations will be required at the funder, institutional and, perhaps, national levels. However, estimated annual author-pays costs and those for a basic system of publications- oriented institutional repositories are relatively modest in comparison to gross and higher education R&D expenditure. All the more so when system-wide cost savings as well as potential increases in the social returns to R&D resulting from more open access to research findings are likely to outweigh those costs. Nevertheless, however modest, the costs would have to be met, as would the costs associated with facilitating the structural, behavioural and cultural changes that would be necessary throughout the scholarly communication system.

16 Open Access: What are the economic benefits?

Annex I Model parameters and assumptions

Cost estimation parameters Parameter Basis Value

FUND RESEARCH External peer review of grant Tenopir and King (2000) time to Average 4.5 hours applications review a journal article Peer reviews per grant Agency annual report (reviews Denmark 1 per application, application received over applications) Netherlands 1.5, UK 3 Peer review costs, per hour Academic salaries including on- Denmark DKK 783 per hour, costs and overheads Netherlands EUR 128 and UK GBP 56

PERFORM RESEARCH Time to write a journal article Tenopir and King (2000), King 90 to 100 hours, average 95 (2004) Time to peer review an article Tenopir and King (2000), King 3 to 6 hours, average 4.5 hours (2004) Number of peer reviewers per Tenopir and King (2000) 2 to 3 reviewers, average 2.5 article Rejection and resubmission Authors’ estimate 50% rejected of which 60% are (article) sent for external review and 40% rejected without review, and of which 75% are resubmitted once Number of peer reviewers per Industry consultation 2 to 3 reviewers, average 2 monograph Rejection and resubmission Authors’ estimate 20% rejected of which 50% are (monograph) resubmitted once Time spent on editorial activities Industry consultation and authors’ 10 to 30 days per annum, estimate average 20 Time spent on editorial board Industry consultation and authors’ ½ to 1 day per year, average ¾ activities estimate Percentage of authors who are Rowlands and Nicholas (2005) 8% and 24%, respectively editors and/or on editorial boards Number of readings per Tenopir and King (2000), Industry/higher education: researcher per year subsequent tracking studies • Articles 130/270 rising to 280 and Tenopir et al. (2008) • Books 53/48 • Reports 65/46 • Trade literature 51/74 • Other items 22/14 Time spent reading an article Tenopir and King (2007) and 34 minutes falling to 31, but Tenopir et al. (2008) slightly higher for research, estimate 31 Time spent searching for and Tenopir and King (2007), CEPA Average 12.5 accessing an article (2008) and Tenopir et al. (2008) Article requests per reading Tenopir and King (2000), CEPA 1.3 to 1.4 (2008) Time spent by author obtaining Halliday and Oppenheim 1 to 4 hours, average 2 permissions per article (1999) Cont’d.

17 A comparison of the United Kingdom, Netherlands and Denmark

Parameter Basis Value Percentage of articles CEPA (2008) and Tenopir et al. 20% print, 69% electronic photocopied or printed (2008) Cost of printing and copying per Authors’ estimate Denmark .54 Kr, Netherlands 10 page cents and UK 5 pence per page Time spent printing or copying an Authors’ estimate 1 to 5 minutes, average 3 article

PUBLISH JOURNALS Pages per article Tenopir and King (2000) and 11.7 to 14.3, estimate 12.4 tracking studies, CEPA (2008), King et al. (2008) Articles per issue Tenopir and King (2000), CEPA 10 to 20, estimate 10 (2008) Issue per year Tenopir and King (2000) and 8 to 16, estimate 12 tracking studies, CEPA (2008) Articles per title per year Tenopir and King (2000) and 50 to 150, estimate 120 (location of average article) tracking studies, Björk et al. (2008) Non-article content pages King (2007), King et al. (2008) 10% to 20%, estimate 14% Article rejection rate Consensus from literature 40% to 60%, estimate 50% (20% rejected without review) Subscriptions per title Tenopir and King (2000), CEPA 300 to 3,000, estimate 1,200 (2008) Management and investment CEPA (2008) 20% to 25%, estimate 20% margin Surplus / profit margin CEPA (2008) adjusted 10% to 30%, estimate 20% E-only delivery and fulfilment CEPA (2008), Waltham (2005), 25% (relative to print) etc. adjusted E-only content processing CEPA (2008), Waltham (2005), 25% (relative to print) etc. adjusted OA rights management (relative Authors’ estimate 20% to toll) OA user support (relative to toll) Authors’ estimate 20% ‘Author-pays’ marketing and Authors’ estimate 33% support costs (relative to toll) OA hosting (relative to toll) Authors’ estimate 50% OA management and Investment Authors’ estimate 75% (relative to toll) OA surplus/profit (relative to toll) Authors’ estimate 75% Source: Author’s analysis.

18 Open Access: What are the economic benefits?

Scenario parameters Parameter Basis Value

FUND RESEARCH Funding, evaluation and reporting Authors’ estimate 50% as a share of operational costs Potential savings in these costs Authors’ estimate 5% to 10%, estimate 5% from enhanced access Returns to publicly funded R&D Literature review (conservative 20% to 60%, estimate 20% consensus from the literature) Improved allocations increase Authors’ estimate 1% to 5%, estimate 2.5% returns to R&D Increase in allocations to R&D Authors’ estimate 1% to 5%, estimate 2.5%

PERFORM RESEARCH Search, discovery and access Authors’ estimate 5% to 10%, estimate 5% time saving through more open access Permissions time saving through Authors’ estimate 40% to 60%, estimate 50% more open access Peer review time saving through Authors’ estimate 5% to 20%, estimate 10% more open access Writing and preparation time Authors’ estimate 5% to 10%, estimate 5% saving through more open access

PUBLISH Share of worldwide scholarly Web of Knowledge, SCOPUS Denmark 1.1%, Netherlands publishing output (articles) and Björk et al. (2008) 2.1% and UK 8.5% Competition reduces publisher Authors’ estimate 5% to 10%, estimate 5% costs and margins

DISSEMINATE Time for self-archiving per item Harnad, Swan (2008), etc. 10 minutes adjusted Self-archiving performance Done by researcher at average Denmark DKK 130, Netherlands cost per hour EUR 21 and UK GBP 9.35 Source: Authors’ analysis.

19 A comparison of the United Kingdom, Netherlands and Denmark

Modelling parameters Parameter Basis Value

CHANGE IN ACCESSIBILITY Percentage change in (i) 50% of the 20% of the stock of 10% to 20% accessibility knowledge that is journals (access) (ii) 50% of the 40% of the stock of knowledge that is publications Percentage change in (i) 25% of the 20% of the stock of 5% to 10% accessibility knowledge that is journals (OA citation) (ii) 25% of the 40% of the stock of knowledge that is publications Combined estimate of the Conservative consensus of the 5% to 10%, estimate 5% percentage change in above accessibility to be modelled

CHANGE IN EFFICIENCY Percentage change in efficiency Authors’ estimate, for illustrative 1% to 5%, estimate 2% (wasteful expenditure: duplicative purposes research and blind alleys) Percentage change in efficiency Authors’ estimate, for illustrative 1% to 5%, estimate 2% (new opportunities: collaborative purposes opportunities) Percentage change in efficiency Authors’ estimate, for illustrative 1% to 5%, estimate 2% (speeding up the process) purposes Combined estimate of the 5% percentage change in efficiency to be modelled

R&D ASSUMPTIONS Social returns to R&D Conservative consensus from 20% to 60%, estimate 20% literature (Arundel and Geuna 2004) Rate of growth in R&D spending EuroStat Denmark 5% per annum, Netherlands 2.6% and UK 5% (current prices) Lag between R&D spending and Mansfield (1991, 1998) 3 years to publication plus 7 impacts years to impact, 10 years Discount rate (risk premium) Conservative consensus from 10% per annum literature Rate of cost increases Conservative estimate from CPI Denmark 5% per annum, and scaled to R&D growth Netherlands 2.6% and UK 3% to 5% (current prices) Source: Authors’ analysis.

20 Open Access: What are the economic benefits?

References Arundel, A. and Geuna, A. (2004) ‘Proximity and the use of public science by innovative European firms,’ Economics of Innovation and New Technology 3(6), pp559-580. Björk, B-C. (2007) ‘A model of scientific communication as a global distributed information system,’ Information Research 12(2) paper 307. Björk, B-C., Roos, A. and Lauri, M. (2008) ‘Global annual volume of peer reviewed scholarly articles and the share available via different Open Access options,’ Proceedings of ELPUB 2008, Toronto, June 2008.

CEPA (2008) Activities, costs and funding flows in the scholarly communications system in the UK, Report commissioned by the Research Information Network (RIN), May 2008. Clarke, R. (2007) ‘The cost profiles of alternative approaches to journal publishing,’ First Monday 12(12), December 2007. EPS, et al. (2006) UK scholarly journals: 2006 baseline report – An evidence-based analysis of data concerning scholarly journal publishing, Research Information Network, Research Councils UK and Department of Trade and Industry.

Halliday, L. and Oppenheim, C. (1999) Economic Models of the Digital Library, eLib, United Kingdom Office of Library and Information Networking. Houghton, J.W. and Sheehan, P.J. (2006) The Economic Impact of Enhanced Access to Research Findings, CSES Working Paper No.23, Melbourne: Victoria University. Available http://www.cfses.com/documents/wp23.pdf.

Houghton, J.W. and Sheehan, P.J. (2009) ‘Estimating the Potential Impacts of Open Access to Research Findings,’ Economic Analysis and Policy 39(1), March 2009. Available http://www.eap-journal.com/.

Houghton, J.W. Steele, C. and Sheehan, P.J. (2006) Research Communication Costs in Australia, Emerging Opportunities and Benefits, Department of Education, Science and Training, Canberra. Houghton, J.W., de Jonge, J. and van Oploo, M. (2009) Costs and Benefits of Research Communication: The Dutch Situation, Utrecht: The SURFfoundation. Houghton, J.W. (2009) Costs and Benefits of Alternative Publishing Models: Denmark, Copenhagen: DEFF.

Houghton, J.W., Rasmussen, B., Sheehan, P.J., Oppenheim, C., Morris, A., Creaser, C., Greenwood, H., Summers, M. and Gourlay, A. (2009) Economic Implications of Alternative Scholarly Publishing Models: Exploring the Costs and Benefits, London & Bristol: The Joint Information Systems Committee (JISC). Available http://www.cfses.com/EI-ASPM/.

21 A comparison of the United Kingdom, Netherlands and Denmark

Kaufman-Wills (2005) The facts about Open Access: A study of the financial and non-financial effect of alternative business models for scholarly journals, ALPSP Special Report.

King, D.W. (2007) ‘The cost of journal publishing: a literature review and commentary,’ Learned Publishing 20(2), April 2007, pp85-106.

King, D.W., Aerni, S., Brody, F., Herbison, M. and Kohberger, P. (2004) Comparative cost of the University of Pittsburgh electronic and print library collections, University of Pittsburgh, May 2004. King, D.W., Tenopir, C. and Clarke, M. (2006) ‘Measuring total reading of journal articles,’ D- Lib Magazine 12(10), October 2006.

Mansfield, E. (1991) ‘Academic research and industrial innovation,’ Research Policy 20(1), 1991, pp. 1-12.

Mansfield, E. (1998) ‘Academic research and industrial innovation: an update of empirical findings,’ Research Policy 26, 1998, pp. 773-776.

Rowlands, I. and Nicholas, D. (2005) New Journal Publishing Models: An international survey of senior researchers, CIBER report.

Schonfeld, R.C., King, D.W., Okerson, A. and Fenton, G.E. (2004) The non-subscription side of periodicals: changes in library operations and costs between print and electronic journals, Council on Library and Information Resources, Washington DC.

Swan, A. (2008) ‘The business of digital repositories,’ in (eds.) Weenink, K., Waaijers, L. and van Godtsenhoven, K. A DRIVER’s Guide to European Repositories, Amsterdam University Press. Tenopir, C. and King, D.W. (2000) Towards electronic journals: realities for scientists, librarians and publishers, SLA Publishing, Washington DC. and elsewhere.

Tenopir, C. and King, D.W. (2002) ‘Reading behavior and electronic journals,’ Learned Publishing 15(4), pp259-265.

Tenopir, C. and King, D.W. (2007) ‘Perceptions of value and value beyond perceptions: measuring the quality and value of journal article readings,’ Serials 20(3), pp199-207.

Tenopir, C., King, D.W., Edwards, S. and Wu, L. (2009) ‘Use of Scholarly Journals and Articles by University Faculty: Changes in Information Seeking and Reading Patterns over Nearly Three Decades’.

Waltham, M. (2005) JISC: Learned Society Open Access Business Models, JISC June 2005. Weenink, K., Waaijers, L. and van Godtsenhoven, K. (2008) A DRIVER’s Guide to European Repositories, Amsterdam University Press.

22