Retaining choice constraining costs in a Plan S world Chris Banks

1. the role of the UKSCL model institutional open access policy
Retaining academic choice and restraining
institutional costs in a Plan S world:
Chris Banks :: Assistant Provost (Space) & Director of Library Services
@chrisbanks
UKCORR Members’ Day: 30 September 2019

2. From policy to delivery

3. Policy
challenges

4. The “policy stack” challenge
• Many funder policies:
• Different compliance requirements
• Differently funded (or not)
• Many different publisher policies
• Some publishers have different
policies depending on who funds the
researcher
• REF policy in particular, differs
substantially from other policies and
applies to all UK academics
• Publisher policies are not always in line
Funding or Research Council policies
• For academics: it is difficult to know what
to do to comply both with funder and REF
policies

5. It’s Complicated
• You’ve had your idea
• You’ve applied for your research
grant
• You’ve hired the staff, done the
research, crunched the data and
written your findings up
• … then this – all in aid of
working out whether your work is
compliant with your funder(s)
and eligible for the REF Arthur Smith, Open Access policy, procedure & process at
Cambridge
https://unlockingresearch-blog.lib.cam.ac.uk/?p=1613

6. A particular UK Challenge
Multiple funder and publisher OA policies create a complex “policy
stack” – knowing what is best/right can be difficult to figure out.
Funders are introducing progressive “open” policies whereas
some significant publishers are setting embargo requirements that
are either at or below the minimum required by funders with the
consequence that opting - and paying - for gold/hybrid open
access may be the only means of compliance. This appears to be
a particular issue in the UK

7. Upward trends
• Publications
• Charges
• Complexity
• Accountability
• Disparity

8. What the data tells us
about policy effectiveness
Policy outcomes

10. Faculty of Medicine: 2007 (3903 articles)
2.56% 19.29%

11. Faculty of Medicine: 2013 (5893 articles)
9.3% 16.85%

12. Repository engagement in 2012 (all faculties)

13. Upscaling by putting the
researcher at the centre
REF & the need
to simplify
process

16. Policy impact

17. REF policy impact: Faculty of medicine 2013 & 2018
57.81%
9.3%

18. Faculty of Medicine 2018 (5264 articles)
57.81%
4.01%

19. Top ten journals by volume are increasingly OA
2014 – 2018 data

20. A particular UK Opportunity
• Funder policies have so far been progressive
– They set minimum criteria and some (REF) will reward those that go
beyond those criteria
– Considerable innovation in monographs publishing
• Academics are covered by multiple funders
– Drives progression - even if going for the minimum compliance, will often
end up exceeding the criteria for, e.g., the REF

21. 2018
• ~88% OA
• ~£2.2m OA payments
• ~£8.5m content budget

22. 91.99% deposits have a
date of acceptance
= 26,918 outputs

23. Plan S
Policy future

24. Everything changes
• Plan S challenges price and pace
• Copyright
• OA
• License
• Embargo
• Negotiations
– Hybrid not supported beyond
2024
2024

25. To implement Plan S aims,
we must bring them
together
Subs & OA

26. Thanks to Jisc for the visualisation

27. Re-thinking the subscriptions portfolio: but how?
Articles 50,225
Journals 5375
Publishers 762
Single article publications 1790
Data: 2012-2018
Of the 5,372 journals in which Imperial researchers published, 1,790
contained only one article in 7 years

28. RCUK spend 2014/15 – 2016/17 showing hybrid/pure split
From p. 7 of the RCUK APC Returns Analysis linked from here:
https://www.ukri.org/funding/information-for-award-holders/open-access/open-access-policy/open-access-block-grants/

29. Type of deal Version of Record
Self-archiving
(S-A): Publisher
policy
Fully OA journals
 
All journals with a compliant self-archiving policy

Big hybrid deals:
covered by Read & Publish (R&P) deal; affordable; taken
by institution

Hybrid:
covered by R&P deal; not affordable; not taken by
institution; no compliant S-A policy
 
Hybrid: no deal; no compliant S-A policy
 
Subscription: no deal; no compliant S-A policy
 
Without an institutional OA policy, which version meets Plan S aims in
order to be eligible for funding now and beyond 2024?
Concerns
about
Costs
Concerns
about
Choice

30. Institutions adopt a model OA licence as a
transition mechanism
Applies to:
Plan S
Compliant?
• Subscription publishers
• Society journals currently
published by mainstream
publishers but which are
seeking a transition to an OA
platform
• Hybrid, not otherwise covered
by a transformative deal
• All of the above, where no
compliant self‐archiving policy
exists
• Model institutional OA
policy
• Based on the Harvard OA
policy
• Rights retained by the
institution on behalf of
academics
• Default licence will align
with UKRI policy
• Current default embargo = 0
months
• AAM Is available
immediately on
publication
• Re‐use rights retained
• Uses a CC licence

31. Type of Journal Version of Record
Self‐archiving (S‐A):
Publisher policy
Self‐archiving: Institutional OA
rights retention policy in place
Fully OA journals
  
All journals with a compliant self‐archiving policy
 
Hybrid:
covered by Read & Publish (R&P) deal; affordable; taken by
institution
 
Hybrid:
covered by R&P deal; not affordable; not taken by institution;
no compliant S‐A policy
  
Hybrid: no deal; no compliant S‐A policy
  
Subscription: no deal; no compliant S‐A policy
  
Perceived restrictions on choice of publication venue Retains academic choice. Acts as a lever to constrain costs
Costs Choice
With the UKSCL Model Institutional OA Policy

32. 32
Text
Publishers
• Collaborate on realistic
affordable transition plans
Institutions:
• Publisher negotiations
• Support academics, esp on ©
& rights retention
• Adopt model OA policy
• Re‐think / upgrade repositories
• Pre‐print/overlay provision
Funders
• Realistic implementation /
transition requirements
• Negotiations with other
funders to increase volume
of outputs covered by
policy
• Incentivise/support
alternative initiatives Researchers
• Consider licence to publish
rather than © transfer
• Act on acceptance – deposit
AAM
• Work with institutions on
model OA policy