Open Access News

[1] In June 2005, the Executive Group of Research Councils UK (RCUK) issued a draft position statement on access to research outputs. Following consultation and discussion, the research councils remain committed to the principles that underpinned that statement and agree on the further activities necessary to develop their position. These principles state that:...Ideas and knowledge derived from publicly-funded research must be made available and accessible for public use, interrogation and scrutiny, as widely, rapidly and effectively as practicable....

[3] RCUK Executive Group reaffirms its long-standing position that authors choose where to place their research for publication. It is for authors’ institutions to decide whether they are prepared to use funds for any page charges or other publishing fees. Such funds could be part of an institution’s indirect costs under the full economic costing regime. RCUK Executive Group makes no judgement as to the most appropriate publishing model.

[4] Research councils agree that their funded researchers should, where required to do so, deposit the outputs from research councils funded research in an acceptable repository as designated by the individual research council. This requirement will be effective from the time indicated in the guidance from the individual research council, This guidance will be published on individual Research Council websites and will, where appropriate, require funded researchers to:

• Personally deposit, or otherwise ensure the deposit of, a copy of any resultant articles published in journals or conference proceedings, in an appropriate repository, as designated by the individual research council.
• Wherever possible, personally deposit, or otherwise ensure the deposit of, the bibliographical metadata relating to such articles, including a link to the publisher’s website, at or around the time of publication.

[5] Full implementation of these requirements must be undertaken such that current copyright and licensing policies, for example embargo periods or provisions limiting the use of deposited content to non-commercial purposes, are respected by authors. The research councils' position is based on the assumption that publishers will maintain the spirit of their current policies.

[6] Where relevant, grant guidelines will be amended to provide guidance to grant holders on the requirement for ensuring the deposit of material, and will apply from the date indicated in individual research council’s guidance. These research councils will also encourage, but not formally oblige, award-holders to deposit articles arising from grants awarded as a result of applications before that date.

[7] RCUK Executive Group has consulted widely on its position statement and it is clear that there is a wide spectrum of views on the likely impact of self-archiving on subscription journals. Accordingly, RCUK Executive Group will:

• Organise a workshop jointly with interested learned societies to discuss the implications for them of self-archiving.
• Consult with the publishing community regarding copyright and licensing issues through existing forums. There is no intention that individual researchers will be expected to break publishers’ copyright or licensing agreements or to negotiate with publishers.
• Initiate a project to investigate the impact of author-pays publication and self-archiving on research publishing. Three leading publishers (Macmillan, Blackwell and Elsevier) have indicated that they are prepared to be involved in the project. Discussions have also taken place with the Royal Society, which also believes that such research could be useful. It is intended that this project will start late in 2006 and report in late 2008. RCUK will review its position in mid to late 2008 in light of the findings from this research. A pre-study with the Research Information Network and the Department of Trade and Industry on the availability of data on scholarly publishing has already started.

Also see the RCUK press release.

In recognition of the diverse research communities served by each Research Council individual Councils will publish guidelines for their communities on access to research outputs in each field. This will ensure that each discipline is best able to respond in ways aligned to their needs. Initial guidance has been published today on Research Council websites.

Here are the eight Research Councils and the web sites where they will describe (or are already describing) their separate OA policies:

• Arts & Humanities Research Council (AHRC)
• Biotechnology & Biological Sciences Research Council (BBSRC)
• Council for the Central Laboratory of the Research Councils (CCLRC)
• Engineering & Physical Sciences Research Council (EPSRC)
• Economic & Social Research Council (ESRC)
• Medical Research Council (MRC)
• Natural Environment Research Council (NERC)
• Particle Physics & Astronomy Research Council (PPARC)

Comments. This news is big but mixed.

1. See my summary of the draft RCUK policy (June 2005) superseded by today's policy.
2. The 2005 draft policy was superb and had four chief strengths: First, it mandated OA and did not merely request it. Second, it applied to all publicly-funded research, not just biomedicine. Third, it gave authors some flexibility about the OA archive in which to deposit their work. Fourth, it offered to pay the fees at OA journals that charge fees. The new policy preserves the second two strengths but may or may not preserve the first two.
3. The new policy seems to mandate OA and seems to cover all the disciplines. But all it really does is defer to the eight separate policies of the eight Research Councils, most of which are still under development. We already know that some will mandate OA and some won't (see next). Today's policy merely requires OA when it is required by one of the Research Councils, an unremarkable tautology.
4. Some of the eight Research Councils say they are working on policies and will announce them before the end of 2006. The EPSCR may not announce its policy until 2008. But three have already taken positions. For example, the CCLRC has decided to "strongly encourage" rather than mandate OA, a major disappointment. It's following the path of the NIH, which has proved that strong encouragement does not work. The ESRC has decided that "its funded researchers should deposit the outputs from any research in the ESRC awards and outputs repository, where this is permitted by publishers' licensing or copyright arrangements," another major disappointment that gives publishers discretion to nullify the policy. The MRC has decided to mandate OA effective October 1, the only one of the eight so far to take this stand.
5. Because some of the Research Councils will not mandate OA, and because they are not required to do so, the new policy is a retreat from the 2005 draft policy. If the RCUK is thinking that different agencies in different disciplines face different circumstances, and need flexibility to respond to those differences, then it's correct. But it could still mandate OA in each field, and if it still adheres to the principles of the 2005 draft (as it says it does), then it should do so. For one way to to this, see the Federal Research Public Access Act (FRPAA), introduced in Congress last month. FRPAA asks federal agencies to develop their own OA policies under certain guidelines laid down in the bill, and one of those guidelines is that they mandate OA to the research they fund.