UKRI Open Access Review: Consultation Analysis Final report for UKRI by CFE Research October 2020 Report authors: John Higton Dr Jo Welford Professor Stephen Pinfield Professor James Wilsdon Dr Rebecca Steer Dr Guy Birkin This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License. For more information about this report please contact: [email protected] CFE Research Phoenix Yard Upper Brown Street Leicester LE1 5TE 0116 229 3300 www.cfe.org.uk Established in 1997, CFE is an independent not-for- profit social research company specialising in three broad fields: education, wellbeing and the economy. Contents Contents ................................................................................................................... 3 1. Introduction and method ............................................................................... 4 1.1 Background and context ..................................................................................... 4 1.2 Methodology ...................................................................................................... 4 2. Executive Summary: Insights and reflections ............................................. 10 3. Review of responses ......................................................................................19 3.1 In-scope outputs and exceptions ......................................................................19 3.2 OA routes and deposit requirements .............................................................. 30 3.3 Licensing requirements, copyright and rights retention ................................. 46 3.4 Technical standards requirements .................................................................. 73 3.5 Timing of implementation ............................................................................... 86 3.6 Public value, costs and funding ....................................................................... 98 3.7 OA infrastructure ........................................................................................... 122 3.8 Preprints ........................................................................................................ 130 3.9 Monitoring compliance ..................................................................................133 3.10 Policy implications and supporting actions ................................................. 139 3.11 Considerations specific to the Research Excellence Framework (REF) ....... 147 3.11.2 Monographs, book chapters and edited collections ................................... 154 Appendix 1: Methodology .................................................................................... 160 Appendix 2: Quantitative response data tables .................................................... 161 Data tables ............................................................................................................ 161 Profile questions .................................................................................................. 162 Section A: Research Articles ................................................................................. 165 Section B: Monographs, Book Chapters and Edited Collections ......................... 178 Section C: Monitoring Compliance ...................................................................... 187 Section D: Policy Implications and Supporting Actions ..................................... 188 Appendix 3: Logistic regression models .............................................................. 190 Regression method .............................................................................................. 190 Correlation matrices ............................................................................................. 191 Regression tables - capacity in response was made ............................................ 194 1. Introduction and method 1.1 Background and context As noted in the supporting consultation document (UKRI, 20201), open research is a key foundation for a research culture and environment that fosters excellent research and innovation. The UK government and UK Research and Innovation (UKRI) recognise open research as an important part of achieving the maximum possible impact from publicly funded research. The UK government’s position, established in 2011, is for publications arising from publicly funded research to be open access. The UK has achieved world leading levels of open access (OA) through the implementation of policies of funders such as Research Councils UK (RCUK) and the Research Excellence Framework (REF). The current RCUK OA policy has been in place since 2012 and the creation of UKRI in 2018 afforded the opportunity to review and develop OA policy across the Research Councils, Innovate UK and Research England, as well as considering alignment with any future REF policy. The UKRI OA Review commenced in late 2018 with a view to delivering a new OA policy by 2021. The UKRI Open Access Review will determine a single UKRI OA policy for research articles and will introduce a new policy for long-form research publications that acknowledge funding from UKRI and its constituent councils. UKRI is seeking to learn from progress made and challenges arising under the existing policies of its councils and from broader developments in OA, to understand how to best move forward in terms of implementing the government’s ambition to transition to full and immediate OA for publicly funded research. The Review includes a consultation exercise, seeking views and evidence on UKRI’s proposed OA policy for publications acknowledging UKRI funding and related considerations (including funding and supporting infrastructure). The consultation ran during spring 2020 and the deadline for responses was extended due to disruption caused by the Covid-19 pandemic. A total of 350 responses were received. CFE Research, with Professor Stephen Pinfield and Professor James Wilsdon of the Research on Research Institute (RoRI), were contracted by UKRI to undertake an analysis of responses to the consultation. The report is for UKRI but has been written in a way that UKRI can published the report once the Review is complete. Therefore, the evidence given by consultees is presented anonymously. The testimony presented and the underlying data collected during the consultation will be used to guide subsequent UKRI OA Review decision-making. 1.2 Methodology UKRI authored the consultation questionnaire and supporting documentation which explained the purpose behind the proposed open access changes (UKRI, 20202). Data was collected via a questionnaire of 68 questions (plus questions describing the background of each consultee) hosted on Survey Monkey. The questionnaire was formatted to predominantly ask a closed question about a given OA topic followed by an open explanation of the closed answer. None of the questions were mandatory and focussed on specific details of the UKRI OA policy rather than 1 UK Research and Innovation (2020) UKRI Open Access Review: Consultation. UKRI. Open access review microsite: https://www.ukri.org/funding/information-for-award-holders/open-access/open-access-review/ Accessed 7th September 2020. 2 ibid. Introduction and method | UKRI Open Access Review: Consultation Analysis Page 4 general views on the principles of OA since UKRI are committed to ensuring access to all publicly funded research. The questionnaire comprised four main sections: • Background information about the viewpoint and professional capacity of the individual responding, and the organisation they represented if relevant • Section A: Views on OA proposals for research articles • Section B: Views on OA proposals for monographs, book chapters and edited collections (these are referred to as "long-form outputs" in the report for the sake of brevity) • Sections C through E covering issues of compliance, policy implications, potential supporting actions and any further comments A note on the profile of consultees Annex A shows the full profile data for all consultees. The interrelationship between two aspects of consultees' profiles are important for the analysis: the capacity in which the consultee responded3; and the disciplines they represent4. Tables 1, 2 and 3 (overleaf) show the distribution of consultees based on these two variables. Table 1 shows more than four in five (84%) consultees responded from six capacities ranging from those representing higher education institutions (HEIs) who comprise more than a quarter (27%) of all, down to learned societies or academies with an in-house publisher, representing one in twenty (5%) of all consultees. All quantitative sub-analyses within the report consider these six sub-groups where base-sizes allow5. Table 2 shows that many consultees selected more than one option when asked the disciplinary area(s) they with which they associated themselves. Most consultees chose at least two option. Three in five (59%) chose the interdisciplinary option, or when all selections were taken into account, combined Science, Technology, Engineering & Maths (STEM) and Arts, Humanities and Social Science (AHSS) options. Nearly a quarter (23%) of all consultees chose STEM / STM (Science, Technology & Medicine) only options and one in six (17%) AHSS only options. Table 3 compares the main six capacities by which a response was made with an aggregated disciplinary category. This shows some large variations in the type of disciplinary response by the capacity in which a consultee responded. In