UKRI Open Access Policy: Summary of Stakeholder Workshops and Consultation Meetings

UKRI Open Access Policy: Summary of stakeholder workshops and consultation meetings Contents: 1. UK Research and Innovation Open Access Review Universities Stakeholder Roundtable – Meeting Note..................................................................................................................................2 2. UKRI Open Access Review Stakeholder Roundtable Libraries, Research Management and Knowledge Exchange – Meeting Note..........................................................................................12 3. UK Research and Innovation Open Access Review Stakeholder Academies and Learned Societies Roundtable – Meeting Note...........................................................................................21 4. UKRI Open Access Review Stakeholder Roundtable Publishers Association – Meeting Note....32 5. UKRI Open Access Review International Association of Scientific, Technical and Medical Publishers Stakeholder Roundtable – Meeting Note....................................................................41 6. UKRI Open Access Review Stakeholder Roundtable Open Access Scholarly Publishers Association (OASPA) – Meeting Note...........................................................................................50 7. UKRI Open Access Review Licensing and Copyright Retention Workshop – Meeting Note........59 8. UKRI Open Access Review Metadata Workshop - Meeting Note................................................78 9. UKRI Open Access Review Researcher Workshop – Meeting Note...........................................93 10. UKRI Open Access Review Publishers Workshop – Meeting Note............................................111 11. UKRI Open Access Review Repositories Workshop – Meeting Note.........................................124 12. UKRI Open Access Review Monographs and Book Chapters Workshop – Meeting Note.........154 13. UKRI Open Access Review Universities and Institutes Leaders – Meeting Note......................194 14. CBI – Cross-sector Open Access Review Roundtable with UKRI (August 2020) – Summary of discussion...............................................................................................................................225 1 UK Research and Innovation Open Access Review Universities Stakeholder Roundtable – Meeting Note 6th December 2018, 58 Victoria Embankment, London Background In December 2018, UK Research and Innovation (UKRI) invited a cross-section of organisations representing key stakeholder groups to a series of roundtables to inform its Open Access (OA) Review. Meetings were held with organisations representing universities, academies and learned societies (as publishers and representatives of disciplinary communities), publishers, and other OA practitioners, including libraries, research management and knowledge exchange. These initial stakeholder meetings aimed to: • hear from organisations/communities regarding where the current UKRI OA policies have worked and where they might be improved; • hear from organisations/communities with regards to how best UKRI might meet its OA ambitions, and what issues need to be considered; • understand how organisations/communities might work with UKRI to help achieve its objectives. This meeting note provides an unattributed summary of views and issues discussed at a roundtable with university representatives on the morning of 6th December 2018, in London. To note: the views summarised are those of participants in the roundtable and do not necessarily reflect the views, priorities and policies of UKRI. Further information about the UKRI OA Review can be found on our website: https://www.ukri.org/funding/information-for-award-holders/open-access/open-access-review/ UKRI representatives David Sweeney UKRI (Meeting Chair) Rachel Bruce UKRI Dr Paul Richards UKRI Stakeholder participants Prof. David Price University College London / The Russell Group Prof. Mark Spearing University of Southampton / The Russell Group Dr Hollie Chandler The Russell Group Dr Greg Walker MillionPlus Rachel Persad GuildHE Gordon McKenzie GuildHE Prof. Adam Tickell University of Sussex / Universities UK Dr Simon Kerridge University of Kent / Universities UK Prof. Roger Kain University of London / Universities UK Samuel Roseveare Universities UK Prof. David Maguire University of Greenwich / Universities Alliance 2 Agenda 1. Overview: UKRI Open Access Review (Rachel Bruce, UKRI; Annex 1) 2. Discussion: Where the current OA policy has worked and what remains to be achieved 3. Discussion: How can UKRI achieve its OA ambitions and what issues need to be considered? 4. Discussion: How representatives’ organisations and communities can work with UKRI to help achieve its objectives Meeting note Progress to OA • Good progress has been made, as illustrated by the increasing number of OA research outputs, although the sector remains in a transitionary phase of a longer process. Associated costs and administration burden are key concerns for the university sector. Research culture • Changes in research culture are required to further enable OA. • The university sector has a responsibility to drive changes in research culture, for example through supporting and implementing the San Francisco Declaration on Research Assessment (DORA), and buy-in from all university leaders. • The REF position on research culture and outputs is helpful. • It is important UKRI carries out an appropriate impact assessment to avoid any unintended negative consequences from OA policy (e.g. for marginal communities such as early career researchers, those who take career breaks, and female researchers). • The pressure to publish and its impact on the volume of publication should be considered, and whether this impacts on quality. Sector engagement and communication • The current policy has increased OA awareness among research staff, its value, and more consideration of the broader Open Science agenda and research ecosystem. Increasingly researchers do understand the value added from open access. • However, understanding is still considered to be relatively limited (e.g. the costs of OA and subscriptions to funders and institutions, and benefits of OA). This affects policy implementation as researchers may not see the costs for research dissemination or feel ownership of OA. • Greater understanding of the underlying financial implications of OA and concurrent changes to research culture are needed to incentivise more researchers to consider journal OA practices when informing decisions about publication. • Universities and UKRI have roles to play in promoting understanding of OA among the academic community to ensure OA policy is effective for all stakeholders. This may also help address misplaced concerns about OA policy (e.g. participants expressed the view that OA mandates were not an infringement of academic freedom). UKRI could: o Consult individual researchers to assess understanding of processes associated with the current/future policy; o Ensure clear communication and engagement about the OA Review with the wider academic community early on, including expectations, timeframes and scope. This 3 would also enable universities to effectively communicate developments to their academics; o Provide a background OA briefing for researchers and university leaders. OA costs, funding and publishing models • OA costs and funding are a key issue as UK universities are and will continue to be key economic actors for OA. Funders (via policies) and universities (via negotiations) have a role to play in helping promote an effective market and acceptable costs. • Current differences in QR and OA block grant funding between institutions, and effects on the ability of universities to pay and administer OA, need to be considered by the OA Review. • Unsustainable costs (e.g. APCs, subscriptions) and administration time and cost (e.g. ensuring compliance and reporting) are key challenges for large and small institutions, which need to be in scope for the Review. • Since the Finch Review there has been progress, but largely through hybrid OA which carries subscription and APC costs that are unsustainable. Universities, working with Jisc Collections, should seek better transformative deals (e.g. publish and read or more enhanced forms of OA) via a more coordinated approach with clearer messages and strategy. The cost of transformative deals may be an issue and the sector has to be prepared to turn down deals they consider unaffordable. • The sector is taking some steps to work together in subscription negotiations. For example, Universities UK are working more closely with Jisc Collections to steer negotiations and seek better outcomes. • Collaboration with publishers on compliance and APC payment processes has been beneficial, but collaboration more broadly has presented challenges due to lack of consensus, and a reluctance of many publishers to more quickly transition to full OA. • Differences between publishers, including commercial publishers, university presses, learned societies and self/open-publishing, need to be considered in UKRI strategy. Wellcome Trust and UKRI are commissioning research to look at business models for learned society publishing. Universities were concerned whether Learned Society business models imposed additional costs on the dissemination system. • OA policy has helped stimulate university presses and this taking back of ownership was perceived as positive. However, it was noted there are substantial costs in establishing new platforms and bodies such as Jisc

Load more