KEMBAR78
Knowledge sharing: OA and preservation in Europe | PDF
Jean-François Dechamp, profile picture
Uploaded byJean-François Dechamp
1,909 views

Knowledge sharing: OA and preservation in Europe

The document presents the conclusions of a strategic workshop on open access and preservation in Europe held in Brussels on November 25-26, 2010, with participation from national experts across EU member states. It highlights the importance of open access, addresses challenges faced in its implementation, and suggests concrete actions and recommendations for enhancing open access policies and practices at both national and European levels. The report emphasizes the need for stakeholder engagement, policy development, collaboration, and infrastructure to promote the benefits of open access for research and society.

Downloaded 13 times
Sharing knowledge: open access and preservation in Europe Conclusions of a strategic workshop - Brussels, 25-26 November 2010 ReseaRch & InnovatIon POLICY
EUROPEAN COMMISSION Directorate-General for Research and Innovation Directorate B – European Research Area Unit B.6 – Ethics and gender Contact: Francesco Fusaro Office SDME 03/17 B-1049 Brussels Tel. (32-2) 29-87458 Fax (32-2) 29-84694 E-mail: francesco.fusaro@ec.europa.eu RTD-OPEN-ACCESS@ec.europa.eu
EUROPEAN COMMISSION SHARING KNOWLEDGE: OPEN ACCESS AND PRESERVATION IN EUROPE Conclusions of a strategic workshop Brussels, 25-26 November 2010 REPORT by Alma Swan (Rapporteur) Prepared by: Alma Swan, Enabling Open Scholarship 2 Denver Place Elm Grove Road Topsham Devon EX3 0EP United Kingdom +44 (0)1392 879702 a.swan@talk21.com www.openscholarship.org
EUROPE DIRECT is a service to help you find answers to your questions about the European Union. Freephone number (*): 00 800 6 7 8 9 10 11 (*) Certain mobile telephone operators do not allow access to 00 800 numbers or these calls may be billed. LEGAL NOTICE Neither the European Commission nor any person acting on behalf of the Commission is responsible for the use which might be made of the following information. The views expressed in this publication are the sole responsibility of the author and do not necessarily refl ect the views of the European Commission. A great deal of additional information on the European Union is available on the Internet. It can be accessed through the Europa server (http://europa.eu). Cataloguing data can be found at the end of this publication. Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union, 2011 ISBN 978-92-79-20449-4 doi:10.2777/63410 © European Union, 2011 Reproduction is authorised provided the source is acknowledged.
Contents Executive Summary �������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������5 Section ONE: The workshop ����������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 9 1.1 The background to the Workshop...................................................................10 1.2 Aims and objectives ........................................................................................10 1.3 Representation at the Workshop ....................................................................10 1.4 Format of the Workshop ................................................................................. 11 1.5 Why national experts attended the Workshop ............................................... 11 1.6 The overall vision: why Open Access and preservation are important..........12 1.7 Progress in the Member States .....................................................................13 1.7.1. Open Access-related experiences of Member States ........................13 1.7.1.1. At institutional level.......................................................................................................... 13 1.7.1.2. At national level................................................................................................................ 13 1.7.2. Problems or bottlenecks encountered ................................................14 1.7.2.1. Lack of awareness and understanding amongst researchers..................14 . 1.7.2.2. Lack of awareness and understanding amongst policymakers...............14 1.7.2.3. Lack of policy...................................................................................................................14 1.7.2.4. Copyright............................................................................................................................15 1.7.2.5. Financial cost of implementation............................................................................15 1.7.2.6. Quality control..................................................................................................................15 1.7.3. The key success factors in overcoming these bottlenecks and problems .......................................................................................15 1.7.3.1. Open Access policies .........................................................................15 1.7.3.2. Advocacy and cultural change work...................................................15 1.7.3.3. Infrastructural aspects of implementation ...........................................16 1.7.3.4. Funding ..............................................................................................16 1.7.3.5. Collaborative approaches ..................................................................16 1.7.4. The results, impacts and benefits .......................................................16 1.7.4.1. Policy development .............................................................................16 1.7.4.2. Culture change ...................................................................................16 1.7.4.3. Infrastructure ......................................................................................16 1.8 Suggestions for concrete actions ..................................................................17 1.8.1. Preservation of scientific information and experimental data ............17 1.8.2. How Open Access can make knowledge more connected and accessible ..................................................................18 1.8.3. Publisher relations and negotiations .................................................18 1.8.4. Measuring Open Access outputs and collecting evidence of the benefits of Open Access ...........................................19 1.8.5. National policies on Open Access ......................................................19 1.8.6. Making repositories user/researcher-friendly .....................................20 1.8.7. Open Access impact indicators as a replacement for existing research bibliometric systems..........................................20 1.8.8. Linking European and national levels .................................................21 1.9 Priorities for the recommended actions .........................................................21
Section TWO: Discussion of the outcomes�����������������������������������������������������������23 2.1 Stakeholder engagement / involvement (advocacy).......................................25 2.2 Top-level engagement and support (policy development) ............................27 2.3 Collaborations and partnerships (coordination).............................................28 2.4 Implementation and manifestations (infrastructure) ......................................29 Section THREE: Recommendations���������������������������������������������������������35 3.1 Advocacy .........................................................................................................36 3.2 Policy ...............................................................................................................36 3.3 Rights ..............................................................................................................36 3.4 Infrastructure ...................................................................................................37 3.5 Business models .............................................................................................37 References���������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������38 Appendices �������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 41 APPENDIX ONE: Workshop participants �������������������������������������������������42 APPENDIX TWO: The format of the Workshop ��������������������������������������44 APPENDIX THREE: Open access – The European context �������������������45 APPENDIX FOUR: Questionnaire on national open access and preservation policies �������������������������������������������������������������������������� 51
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
6 SHARING KNOWLEDGE: OPEN ACCESS AND PRESERVATION IN EUROPE AWorkshopwasheldinBrusselson25-26November2010,attendedbyaround20invited nationalexpertsfromEUMemberStates,withtheaimsof:gettinganunderstanding of Member States’ implementation of the 2007 Council Conclusions on scientific informationinthedigitalage;sharingexperiencesandknow-howregardingsuccessful implementationsandbestpractices;andcreatingacommonvisionofwhatcanbedone nextintermsofpolicyandactionatMemberStateandatEuropeanlevels. Thisreportdocumentstheproceedings,setstheminthecontextofdevelopments sofaronOpenAccessandpreservationataninternationallevelandmakesasetof recommendationsforfutureECaction. OneissueaddressedwaswhyOpenAccessandpreservationareimportant.Theexperts listedbothhigh-level,principle-basedreasonsandmorepragmaticones.Theformer categoryincludedthemoralargumentthattheresultsofpublicly-fundedresearchshould bepubliclyavailable,thatOpenAccessenablesresearchfindingstobesharedwiththe widerpublic,helpingtocreateaknowledgesocietyacrossEuropecomposedofbetter- informedcitizens,andthatOpenAccessenhancesknowledgetransfertosectorsthatcan directlyusethatknowledgetoproducebettergoodsandservices.Themorepractice- focusedreasonswerethatOpenAccessimprovesresearchefficiency,andenablesre-use ofresearchoutputs,providesthebasisforbetterresearchmonitoringandevaluation. PreservationofresearchoutputsensuresthattheculturalheritageofEuropeisprotected andcuratedforfuturegenerationsandthatscientificoutputsarekeptinformatsthat ensuretheyarepermanentlyusableandaccessible. ParticipantsreportedonprogressonOpenAccessandpreservationintheindividual MemberStates.AtinstitutionalleveltherehavebeenprojectsonOpenAccessinindividual universities, progress on the development of CRIS (Current Research Information Systems),andsomeprogressonpolicydiscussion.AtnationallevelOpenAccesshas beenincorporatedintonationalstrategyforscienceandresearchinsomecountries.At infrastructurallevel,nationalarchivesforOpenAccesscontent–ornationalharvesting systems,presentingOpenAccessmaterialthroughnationalportals–havebeensetupin someMemberStates. Bottleneckshaveprimarilybeen:lackofawarenessandunderstandingofOpenAccess amongstresearchersandpolicymakers;limitedpolicydevelopment;issuesaround copyright(authorsoftenbelievethatmakingtheirworkOpenAccessinfringescopyright andinsomeMemberStatescopyrightlawimpedesOpenAccess);misconceptionsamong authorsaboutqualitycontrol,whichtheybelieveerroneouslytobeabsentfortheOpen Accessliterature;andthefinancialcostofimplementationofOpenAccess. Keysuccessfactorsinovercomingthesebottleneckshavebeen:goodpolicydevelopment atinstitutionalandnationallevel;well-designedadvocacyandculture-changeworkat authorandpolicymakerlevels;infrastructuraldevelopments;adequatefundingfor infrastructuralandadvocacywork;andthedevelopmentofeffectivecollaborative approachesinvolvingvariousstakeholderswhosharethemission. The results and impacts of overcoming the bottlenecks and barriers are: policy implementationatinstitutionalandnationallevel;culturechangeintermsofachieving
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY  7 good self-archiving levels (‘Green’ Open Access) and raising awareness; and the developmentofinfrastructuresthatsupportOpenAccessandpreservation,suchas nationalharvestingsystemsandnationalpreservationarrangements. Participantsagreedalistofprioritiesforconcreteactionsthatcanbetakenasaresultof theWorkshop.Thesewere: • Stakeholderengagement/involvement(advocacy).Suggestedactionpointsin thisareawere:creationofnewmetricsforOpenAccesscontent;developmentof indicatorstodemonstratethebenefitsofOpenAccess;furtherawareness-raising activities;developmentofincentivesforauthorsandpublisherstoincreasethe amountofOpenAccesscontent;encouragingthesharingofgoodpractices • Top-levelengagementandsupport(policydevelopment).Suggestedactionpoints underthisheadingwere:makingthe‘Green’routetoOpenAccess(through repositories)mandatory; developmentofpoliciesatgovernment,funder,and institutionallevelacrossEurope;explorationofcopyrightlawsinEUstateswitha viewtorecommendingmodificationorcreatinganewlawpertainingtoacademic researchoutputs • Collaborationsandpartnerships.Suggestedactionpointsforthisareawere: coordinationactivitiestosupportadvocacyandothersupportingactionsforOpen Access;identifyexistinginitiativesandbuilduponthem;encouragethesharingof goodpractices • Implementationandmanifestations(infrastructures).Suggestedactionpointsfor thistopicwere:developmentofstandardsforallaspectsofOpenAccess;funding forinfrastructuraldevelopments;investmentine-researchinfrastructuresin Europe,especiallythosethatsupportthedevelopmentoftheOpenDataagenda; investmoreeffortindevelopmentoftechnologiesandenablersofOpenData; developtechnicalinfrastructuretosupportpreservationofresearchoutputs;fund workondataandmetadatacurationforthelong-term;developmentoftoolsto supportdepositandcurationofcontentinOpenAccesscollections;investigation ofnewbusinessmodelsapplicabletoOpenAccess Theseoutcomesarediscussed(bytheRapporteur)inthisreportinthelightofcontextual backgroundinformationanddevelopments.Aseriesofrecommendationsarethenmade asfollows: Recommendation 1: BuildonwhatwasachievedbytheWorkshoptostrengthenthe nascentnetworkandenableandencouragefurtherinteractionsandcollaborations (coordination) Recommendation 2: Encourageandsupportinitiativesthataimtodevelopadvocacy programmesacrosstheUnion Recommendation 3:Fundthedevelopmentofindicatorsthatbetterassessscientific progressandmeasurethebenefittostakeholdercommunitiesacrosssociety Recommendation 4: EnablecoordinationofpolicyatEuropeanlevel
8 SHARING KNOWLEDGE: OPEN ACCESS AND PRESERVATION IN EUROPE Recommendation 5:Encourageandsupportinitiativesthataimtoincreaseawarenessand understandingoftheissuesaroundOpenAccessandpreservationatpolicymakerlevels Recommendation 6:Informandencourageauthorsandinstitutions(andfunderswhere appropriate)toretaintherightsthatarenecessarytoprovideOpenAccessandenable adequatepreservationofscientificoutputs Recommendation 7:Enableasharedunderstandingacrossallstakeholders(researchers, institutions,funders,librariesandpublishers)ofthelegalterminologyandconcepts involved Recommendation 8: Build upon the investment in OpenAIRE by further enabling coordinateddevelopmentsthatjoinupemerginginfrastructurestomaximumeffect Recommendation 9:ProvideEuropean-levelguidanceandleadershiptoMSonthe principleofthelong-termnecessityandbenefitofaccesstoandpreservationofscientific information Recommendation 10:Examinethelong-termprospectsfortheinfrastructuralbasis forOpenAccesssofardevelopedinEurope.Assessthisinthecontextofcreatinga coordinated,viable,sustainablesystemthatwillenablethecreationoftheInnovation Unionoverthenext15years
Section ONE: The workshop
10 SHARING KNOWLEDGE: OPEN ACCESS AND PRESERVATION IN EUROPE 1.1  The background to the Workshop TheWorkshopwasconvenedtoexplorethestateofplayandprogresswithinMember States(MS)withrespecttoOpenAccessto,andpreservationof,scientificresearch outputs.BothhavebeenontheCommission’sagendaforsomeyears,beginningwiththe studyintoscientificpublishingcarriedoutonbehalfoftheCommissionandpublishedin 2006(seebelowformoredetail). Thetwothings–OpenAccessandpreservation–areseparatebutrelatedissues.Open Accessisaboutfree-of-chargeaccessibilityofoutputs(researchtextsanddata)without delayassoonastheyarereadyforpublication:preservationconcernsensuringthelong- termstorage,careandcontinuingfreeaccessibilityoftheseoutputs.Thepresentpolicy situationonthesetwothings,bothatEuropeanandatMemberStatelevel,hasarisenout ofanumberofinitiativesandsteps,somecoordinatedandsomenot,sincethebeginning ofthemillennium.ThiscontextislaidoutmorefullyinAppendix1. 1.2  Aims and objectives Thehigh-levelaimsoftheWorkshopwere: • togetanunderstandingofMemberStates’implementationofthe2007Council Conclusionsonscientificinformationinthedigitalage • toshareexperiencesandknow-howregardingsuccessfulimplementationsand bestpractices • tocreateacommonvisionofwhatcanbedonenextintermsofpolicyandaction atMemberStateandatEuropeanlevels • tosustainMemberStateinvolvementandcommitment • toidentifyareasinwhichEuropean-level(EC-level)actionmakessenseandwould bewelcome. TheCommissionwouldliketodevelopconcrete policy recommendationsonhowtomove forwardatMemberStateandEuropeanlevelonaccessandpreservationissuesandthe Workshopwasconvenedtoinformthedevelopmentofthatpolicy. 1.3  Representation at the Workshop Representationwasasbelow. i)ExpertsfromMemberStates: Austria,Belgium,CzechRepublic,Denmark,Estonia,France,Germany,Greece,Iceland, Ireland,Italy,Latvia,Lithuania,Netherlands,Poland,Portugal,Slovakia,Slovenia,Spain, Sweden,UnitedKingdom ii)TheEuropeanCommission • Jean-MichelBaer • Jean-FrançoisDechamp
SECTION ONE: THE WORKSHOP  11 • FrancescoFusaro • GillesLaroche • MatthieuKleinschmager • Alexis-MichelMugabushaka • TheodorePapazoglou • JuanPelegrin • CarlosMoraisPires • CelinaRamjoué • LorenzaSaracco • JarkkoSiren • EcaterinaStamate iii)Rapporteur:Alma Swan,EnablingOpenScholarshipandKeyPerspectivesLtd 1.4  Format of the Workshop TheWorkshopemployedavarietyoftechniquestoensuredelegateparticipation.These fellunderanoverallapproachcalledtheArt of Hosting and Convening Meaningful Conversations(www.artofhosting.org).Thespecifictechniquesemployedatthisevent aredescribedinAppendix2. 1.5  Why national experts attended the Workshop TherewerefivemainreasonsgivenbythenationalexpertsforattendingtheWorkshop. Theywere: • TolearnaboutdevelopingpoliciesonOpenAccessandPreservation,andhowto implementthem • ToshareexperiencesoftryingtopromoteOpenAccess,includingonpolicy developmentandimplementation • ToexplorethepossibilityofcollaboratingwithotherstoachieveOpenAccess • ToobtaininformationthatwillhelptoguideOpenAccessdevelopmentintheir homestate • ToencourageandhelpguideactionatEuropeanlevel Thereweresomeother,lesscommonreasonsgiven,suchasbeinginterestedinOpen Data, exploring business models for Open Access, and developing infrastructures forpreservation.Ingeneral,though,participantshadcometolearnfromandshare experiencesandwiththehopethattheeventmighthelpcatalysepartnershipand networkingactivitiesandmovedevelopmentsalongatEuropeanlevel.
12 SHARING KNOWLEDGE: OPEN ACCESS AND PRESERVATION IN EUROPE 1.6    he overall vision: why Open Access and preservation   T are important  ThroughWorldCaféconversationsthenationalexpertsgavetheirpersonalviewsasto whyOpenAccessandPreservationofscientificinformationareimportant.Thereasons werecollectedattheendofthesessionandrelatedreasonsweregroupedtogether. Overall,theyfellintotwocategories. First,therewerethehigh-level,principle-basedreasons: • Themoralargument,whichisthattheresultsofpublicly-fundedresearchshould bepubliclyavailable • OpenAccessenablesresearchfindingstobesharedwiththewiderpublic,helping tocreateaknowledgesocietyacrossEuropecomposedofbetter-informedcitizens • OpenAccessenhancesknowledgetransfertosectorsthatcandirectlyusethat knowledgetoproducebettergoodsandservices.Manyconstituenciesoutsidethe researchcommunityitselfcanmakeuseofresearchresults.Theseincludesmall andmedium-sizedcompaniesthatdonothaveaccesstotheresearchthrough companylibraries,organisationsofprofessional(legalpractices,familydoctor practices,etc),theeducationsectorandsoforth Secondthereweremoreprosaic,practice-focusedreasons: • OpenAccessimprovesresearchefficiencybyobviatingtheneedforresearchersto spendtimeseekingwaysofaccessinginformation,gettingpermissiontousethat information,findingoutwhatpermissionsforre-useexistandsoon.Theyalso finditeasiertoavoidduplicationofpreviousworkifitissimpletofindoutwhat previousworkhasbeendone,andeasiertoavoidblindalleysifpreviousworkhas shownthemtoexist.Allofthisismadepossiblebyhavingfreeandeasyaccess tothewholeliteratureratherthantojustthesubsetofitavailablethroughthe subscriptionspurchasedbyanyoneuniversitylibrary • Re-useofresearchoutputsisimprovedbyOpenAccess(whosedefinitionincludes there-useofresearchoutputswithoutrestrictionsimposedbyconventional copyrightpractice).OpenAccessarticlescanbeharvestedbymachinesintonew, usefulcollections,canbeminedformeaningorfactsbytext-miningcomputer technologieswhichthencreatenewknowledge,andcanbeusedforteachingand alliedpurposeswhichnormallyfallfoulofcopyrightrestrictions • OpenAccessenablesbetterresearchmonitoringandevaluation.Insteadofa systemwhereonlyaproportionofjournalsaretrackedforcitationstothepapers theypublish,andaresearcher’sworthismeasuredbythe‘quality’ofthejournalin whichtheypublish,OpenAccessenablescitationsandothermeasuresofimpact fromacrossthewholeresearchliteraturetobetrackedtotheindividualarticleor researcherratherthanthejournal.Eachinstitution’sOpenAccessrepository(digital collectionofresearchoutputs)alsoenablesresearchmanagersatthatinstitution toassessandstudyresearchprogresslocallyandcomparethattocompetitor institutions • ThedevelopmentoftechnologiestolinkOpenAccessrepositoriesandCurrent ResearchInformationSystems(CRIS)inresearchinstitutionsbuildsuponthe
SECTION ONE: THE WORKSHOP  13 advantagesmentionedinthepreviouspoint.Untilnow,institutionalmanagers havenotbeenabletosayhowmanypapershavebeenpublishedfromtheir institution,wheretheyhavebeenpublished,whoauthoredthem,whatprojects thoseauthorsworkedon,whatresearchgrantsthoseprojectshavebenefitedfrom, whatequipmenthasbeenpurchasedfromthosegrants,andsoon.Nowallthis informationcanbecollected,collatedandlinkedupinmeaningfulwaystoproduce acompletemanagementinformationsystemforanyresearch-basedinstitution • PreservationofresearchoutputsensuresthattheculturalheritageofEuropeis protectedandcuratedforfuturegenerations;thatscientificoutputsarekeptin formatsthatensuretheyarepermanentlyusableandaccessible 1.7  Progress in the Member States  National experts reported on developments in Member States since the Council Conclusionswereissuedlatein2007.TheydidthisbyworkinginWorldCaféformat. Onepersondescribedtheirexperienceswhiletheothersatthetablelistened,helpedthe speakertobringoutthekeyissuesofthatexperience,andrecordedthemonpaper.Each delegateinturndescribedtheirexperiencesinthisway.Thekeyissueswererecorded finallyonsmallpiecesofpaperandthenationalexpertsarrangedtheseintogroupsof relatedissuesunderthefourmainheadingquestions,whichwere: • WhataretheOpenAccess-relatedexperiencesofyourMemberState? • Whatproblemsorbottleneckswereencountered? • Whatwerethekeysuccessfactorsinovercomingthesebottlenecksandproblems? • Whatweretheresults,impactsandbenefits? 1.7.1. Open Access-related experiences of Member States SomeMShavemadeconsiderableprogressonOpenAccess,whileothersareslowerto initiatedevelopments.Thedevelopmentsthatwerereportedwere: 1.7.1.1.  At  institutional  level:  there have been projects instigated on Open Access in individual universities, progress on the development of CRIS (Current Research Information Systems; see section 2.4, penultimate bullet point), and some progress on policydiscussion. 1.7.1.2.  At national level: theargumentforOpenAccesshassuccessfullybeentakento governmentlevelinsomeMSandinsomecaseshavebeenincorporatedintonational strategyforscienceandresearch.OpenDatapolicyhasalsobeenimplementedinone case. At infrastructural level, national archives for Open Access content have been set up (for example, the national Open Access repository for theses in Greece), a national CRIShascollected10%ofpublicationsinDenmark,andanationalOpenDatarepository and a national portal for Open Access journals has been established. The most far- reaching development has occurred in Portugal, with the establishment of the RCAAP (RepositórioCientíficodeAcessoAbertodePortugal)whichharvestsOpenAccesscontent fromPortugueseuniversityrepositoriesandpresentsthemthroughanationalinterface. This is paralleled at disciplinary level by UKPMC (UK PubMed Central) which collects
14 SHARING KNOWLEDGE: OPEN ACCESS AND PRESERVATION IN EUROPE biomedicalresearchoutputsfromUKinstitutionsandpresentsthemthroughanOpen Accessportal. 1.7.2. Problems or bottlenecks encountered TwomainbottlenecksthatwerementionedbymanyMSrepresentatives–lackof awarenessaboutOpenAccessonthepartofresearchersandpolicymakers,andlackof policy.LackoffinancialsupportwasalsoraisedasabarriertoachievingOpenAccessand properprovisionforpreservationofresearchfindings.Someotherissueswerealsoraised andallarereportedbelow. 1.7.2.1.  Lack  of  awareness  and  understanding  amongst  researchers:  This is not confined to European researchers. Surveys have repeatedly shown that researchers are still not properly aware of the concept and that, even if they have some knowledge of OpenAccess,thereisusuallysomelackofunderstandingoftheissues.Inparticular,the issuesofqualitycontrol,theroleofrepositoriesandthematterofcopyrightareespecially prominentasfactorsaboutwhichresearchersareconfusedanduninformed(seebelow for more on these bottlenecks). Some researchers even appear to be resistant to the ideaofopennessitself,thoughthisresistanceismoreusuallyapplicabletoresearchdata thantoresearchpublications.TheresultisdemonstrableresistancetotheideaofOpen Access,misunderstandingsandbaselessprejudiceagainstitwithinpartsoftheresearch community. 1.7.2.2.  Lack of awareness and understanding amongst policymakers: Policymakers are, with notable exceptions, even more unaware than researchers about Open Access and can often be uninformed about the issues around scientific communication in general.Lackofawarenessandunderstandingisattherootofthegenerallackofpolicy developmentatMSlevel(andatinstitutionallevel).Nationalexpertsreporteddifficulty ingettinginterestandattentionfrompolicymakersonOpenAccessandrelatedissues. 1.7.2.3.  Lack  of  policy:  Some MS do have high-level policies on Open Access and preservation.TheNetherlands,forexample,hasasysteminplacenationallyforpreserving researchoutputsinthecustodianshipoftheRoyalLibrary(KB).MostMSdonothavesucha system,thoughinsomecasesitisindevelopment(forexample,theBritishLibraryisworking onanambitiousplanforpreservationofthenation’sscientificandculturalheritage). Thereisapolicythatcovers20%ofFrameworkProgramme7(FP7)-fundedresearch outputsandsomeMShavepoliciesinplaceatnationalresearchfunderlevel(some examplesare:theAustrianResearchCouncil,theSwedishResearchCouncil,theseven UKResearchCouncils),andthereisanOpenAccesspolicyfromtheEuropeanResearch Council.Inthemain,though,thereislittleinthewayofpolicydevelopmentatMSlevel, andnotmuchmoreatinstitutionallevel1.ThisisahindrancetotheadvanceofOpen Accessbecausepoliciesservenotonlytosupportanimplementationprogramme,butalso toinformresearchersaboutOpenAccess.Theyareexcellentadvocacytools. 1 S eelistofextantpoliciesatROARMAP(RegistryofOpenAccessRepositoryMaterialArchivingPolicies) http://www.eprints.org/openaccess/policysignup/
SECTION ONE: THE WORKSHOP  15 1.7.2.4.  Copyright:  Researchers who are not properly informed about Open Access believe (erroneously) they will be infringing copyright if they self-archive their work in repositories and do not believe that Open Access is compatible at all with scientific publishing.NationalexpertsfromsomeMS(forexample,Germany)reportedthattheir ownnationalcopyrightlawsdonotpermitOpenAccessbyself-archiving. 1.7.2.5.  Financial cost of implementation: Therewasagreementamongstanumberof participantsreportedthatthecostofimplementingOpenAccessandgoodpreservation practicesintheirMSwasinhibitingtheadvanceofthesethings. 1.7.2.6.  Quality control: Manyresearchers–andsomepolicymakers–whoarenotproperly informedbelievethatOpenAccessisaboutpublishingmaterialwithoutpeerreview.Thisis anerroneousbelief(asOpenAccessjournalsimplementpeerreviewasdotheirsubscription counterparts,andrepositoriescollecttheauthor’sfinalversionofarticles,afterpeer-review) butitremainsquiteprevalent.AuthorsthereforefrequentlyandincorrectlybelievethatOpen Accesscontentequateswithlowerstatusthancontentpublishedinthe‘traditional’way. 1.7.3. The key success factors in overcoming these bottlenecks and problems Byfarthemost-mentionedkeysuccessfactorwasgettingapolicyonOpenAccessinplace. Itforceschangeinawaythatadvocacyandexampledonot.Yetadvocacyhasitsplace,and engagementofkeystakeholdersthroughadvocacyhasprovedtobeaveryeffectiveroute toresearcherinvolvementandpolicymakingprogress,especiallywheretheexistingculture andpracticescanbeusedtosupportOpenAccess.Othersuccessfactorsreportedwere infrastructuraldevelopments,securingappropriatefundingandcollaborativeapproaches. 1.7.3.1.  Open Access policies ExpertsfromMSwherenational-levelorinstitutional-levelpolicieshavebeenadopted reportedthattheyaresuccessfulinincreasingtheamountofmaterialopenlyavailableand inraisingawarenessofOpenAccessamongstauthors.Policiesusuallyexplainthecasefor OpenAccessandaresupportedbyclearguidancetoresearchersonhowtoprovideOpen Accesstotheirwork. 1.7.3.2.  Advocacy and cultural change work Expertsreportedthatinvolvingkeystakeholders(authors,institutionalmanagers,national researchpolicymakers)hasbeencriticallyimportantinadvancingOpenAccess.Successful advocacyhasincludededucationandinformationcampaigns,usingbibliometricindicators tomakethecaseforOpenAccess,promotingthevisibilityandusabilityofOpenAccess materialandexplainingthereach(andsubsequentimpact)itcanhaveoutsideofthe ‘normal’researchcommunityaudience.
16 SHARING KNOWLEDGE: OPEN ACCESS AND PRESERVATION IN EUROPE 1.7.3.3.  Infrastructural aspects of implementation Well-designedinfrastructuraldevelopmentscanenhanceOpenAccess.Somenational expertsreportedthatintegratingrepositoriesonlocalandnationalbaseshadhelped OpenAccessintheirMS.Portugalisagoodexampleofthis,withthebuildingofanational harvestertriggeringactivityinabottom-upfashionatinstitutionalrepositorylevel. 1.7.3.4.  Funding FundingearmarkedforOpenAccessandpreservationdevelopmentscanbeimportant. Bothinfrastructureandadvocacyrequiresomefinancialsupport. 1.7.3.5.  Collaborative approaches ThepartnershipcreatedbytheFP7projectOpenAIREwasmentionedasacontributory factorinenhancingOpenAccessinonedelegate’scase. 1.7.4. The results, impacts and benefits Theresults,impactsandbenefitsreportedbynationalexpertsfellintofourmaincategories –policydevelopment,culturechange,establishmentofinfrastructureandtheamassingof acorpusofOpenAccesscontent.Itwasnotable,however,thatfarfewernationalexperts reportedanythinginthissessionthanforthebottlenecksandkeysuccessfactors. 1.7.4.1.  Policy development TwonationalexpertsreportednationalpoliciesonOpenAccessforthesesandone reportedthesuccessfulcoordinationofOpenAccesspolicieswithintheircountry. 1.7.4.2.  Culture change Examplesofculturechangegivenwere:instigatinganOpenAccessawarenesscourse, determiningthroughastudythat55%ofjournalarticlespublishedbyDanishresearchers arepublishedin‘Green’journals(thatis,thepublisherallowsthemtobearchivedinOpen Accessrepositories);andachievingsomesuccessinchangingthebehaviourandattitudes ofresearcherstowardsOpenAccess. 1.7.4.3.  Infrastructure Infrastructuredevelopmentswereaboutestablishingnationalrepositorysystems, includingthenationalharvestingrepositoriesinIrelandandPortugal.
SECTION ONE: THE WORKSHOP  17 1.8  Suggestions for concrete actions  TheseconddayoftheWorkshopbeganwithaProActionCafésessiontoreflectupon whathadhappenedthusfarandforindividualstoidentifyparticulartopicsthatthey consideredworthyofexploringtopromoteOpenAccessandpreservationinEurope.Eight topicswereoffered: • Preservationofscientificinformationandexperimentaldata • HowOpenAccesscanmakeknowledgemoreconnectedandaccessible • Publisherrelationsandnegotiations • MeasuringOpenAccessoutputsandcreatingevidenceofthebenefitsofOpen Access • NationalpoliciesonOpenAccess • Makingrepositoriesuser/researcher-friendly • Openaccessimpactindicatorsasareplacementforexistingresearchbibliometric systems • LinkingEuropeanandnationallevels ParticipantsusedtheWorldCaféformattodiscussthesetopics.Topicleadersremained atatableandthreeotherpeoplejoinedthediscussionforaperiod,movingontoother tablesattheendofeachperiod.Thetopicleadermadenotesofthekeyinsightsarising inthesediscussionsandproducedashortoverviewdetailingthemainpointsthatarose, whichtheypresentedtothewholegroup.Asummaryofthesemainpointsforeach topicfollows: 1.8.1. Preservation of scientific information and experimental data Technicalbottlenecksshouldnotbeallowedtohinderpreservationandpreservation solutionsshouldbebasedonopensourcesoftware • Optimalpreservationsolutionswillvaryaccordingtoresearchdiscipline • ThereneedstobeaEuropeandimension(EuropeanStorageInfrastructure)tolink nationalrepositoryinfrastructures • AFederationofPreservationshouldbeestablishedonaEuropeanscaletoenable nationalarchivestoworktogetherincommonaim,withmirrorsitesestablishedto ensuresafecustodyofdata Box 1: Next steps on preservation of scientific information and experimental data include: • S ettingupworkingpartieswithresearchersandusersofexperimentaldata indifferentdisciplinestodefinestandards • E xplorationoftheissuesinvolvedinmigrationofdataovertimefromone formattoanother • D evelopmentofguidelinesonwhatdatatopreserves,forhowlong,where andhow
18 SHARING KNOWLEDGE: OPEN ACCESS AND PRESERVATION IN EUROPE 1.8.2. How Open Access can make knowledge more connected and accessible Therearebothculturalandscientific/technicalissuesatstakehere.Culturalaspects includelegalpracticeandincentivesforbothauthorsandpublisherstochangetheirown practicesandnormstoembraceOpenAccess.Scientific/technicalissuesincludemetadata standards,technologiesforextractionandautomaticcreationofmetadata,bettersearch capabilities(using,forexample,naturallanguagequerying),andtheestablishmentof infrastructureforrepresentingandpreservinglargevolumesofresearchdata. Box 2: Next steps on how Open Access can make knowledge more connected and accessible: • DevelopincentivesforresearcherstomaketheirworkOpenAccess • Investigatestandardsforgood,cleanmetadata(includinglinkingtoother datasets) • Clarifylegalissuesrelatedtolinking,sharingandre-usingOpenAccess content • Educateallconstituenciesaboutthenewparadigmsofresearch communication 1.8.3. Publisher relations and negotiations Thereshouldbetransparencyoverpricenegotiationswithpublishers,withinformation postedontheWeb.Thediscussionconcludedthatsomepublishersareinnovativeand forward-looking,andthesecouldbenurturedandencouragedandpromotedwherever possible.Alternative,viableandsustainablepublishingbusinessmodelsthatallowOpen Accesscanbedeveloped,andtheseshouldbeexplored,especiallywithlearnedsocieties. TherewasasuggestionforacommonEuropeanapproachinnegotiatingwithpublishers. Box 3: Next steps on publisher relations and negotiations include: • Creatingawebsitedocumentingthestateofplayforeachpublisherwith respecttoOpenAccess.Thisneedstobekeptuptodate • Astudyshouldcollectinformationonnewbusinessmodelsforpublishers • TheCommissionshouldorganiseaworkshoponrelationsanddealingswith publishers • T hereshouldbenationalandEuropean-levelprojectsinassociationwith innovativepublishersinordertopromotethesepublishersandtheirwork • W orkshouldbeginwithlearnedsocietypublishers • D GCompetitionshouldexaminewhethertheacademicpublishingindustry isactuallyamonopolysituation • A lobbyisneededtopromoteOpenAccess • A commonEuropeanapproachisneededinnegotiationswithpublishers, ratherthanthefragmentedinstitutionalornationalapproachesofthepresent
SECTION ONE: THE WORKSHOP  19 1.8.4. Measuring Open Access outputs and collecting evidence of the benefits of Open Access Thetraditionalacademicmeasureofimpacthasbeenthecitationofapieceofwork,but therearemanyusersofresearchthatdon’tciteit,suchasprofessionals,practitioners andbusinessusers.New,additionalmetricsareneededtomeasureandreflectthebigger worthandutilityofresearch.Measuresthatcouldbeimportantare: For researchers:mediacoverageandusagemetrics For institutions:economicefficienciesofOpenAccess,usagemetrics,mediacoverage, enhancementofinterdisciplinaryresearchbyOpenAccess For governments and national research funders: usage metrics, media coverage, compliancewithpolicies,enhancementofinterdisciplinaryresearchbyOpenAccess,cost percitation,costperuse For society at large:publicsurveys,citizeneducation,qualityofmediareporting Box 4: Next steps on Measuring Open Access outputs and creating evidence of the benefits of Open Access include: • E xplorationofthescopeofindicatorsthatcouldbeusefultodifferent constituencies • S copingstudytoprovideanoutlineofwhatworkisnecessarytodevelop them 1.8.5. National policies on Open Access Therewasnoagreeddecisionaboutwhethernationalpoliciesareneededornot.Some peoplearguedthatabottom-upapproachismosteffective,butothersholdthata nationalpolicyisessentialsothatatop-downinfluencehelpsthebottom-upinitiatives. Theadvantageofanationalapproachisthatnationalauthoritiesareusuallyneededfor involvementwithlegalissues,copyrightandinnegotiationswithpublishers.Withrespect topreservation,anational-levelapproachishighlydesirabletopreserveculturalheritage andtoputinplacepropersystemsforpreservingscientificresearchmaterialinthelong term. Box 5: Next steps on National policies on Open Access include: • C onsiderationofwhethertheCommissionshouldissueguidelineson developmentofnationalpolicies:thesewouldcoverbestpractice,practical issues,samplecontracts
20 SHARING KNOWLEDGE: OPEN ACCESS AND PRESERVATION IN EUROPE 1.8.6. Making repositories user/researcher-friendly Atissueisthefactthatmostrepositoriesarehalf-emptyandoftenhavepoorquality metadata.NationalCRISsarebeingbuiltwithOAIcompliance,whichshouldaddvalueto thesesystems. Box 6: Next steps on making repositories user/researcher-friendly include: • CreateamoreefficientbusinessmodelforlinkingrepositoriesandCRISs Europe-wide • Setstandardsonplatformsandinteroperability,withtheneedfor researcherstodeposittheirarticlesonlyonce 1.8.7. Open Access impact indicators as a replacement for existing research bibliometric systems The most-used bibliometric indicator systems (e.g. Web of Science, Scopus) are commercial,paid-forservicesthatarenotavailabletoallandwhichcreatedataonly foraproportionoftheworld’sresearchliterature.Newcitationservicesworkingon OpenAccesscontentwouldencourageresearcherstomaketheirworkOpenAccessand convinceadministratorsthatOpenAccesscanbeusefulinresearchassessmentand monitoring. Box 7: Next steps on Open Access impact indicators as a replacement for existing research bibliometric systems include: • Lookatthetechnicalchallengesthissuggestionpresents • Explorethepossibilityofdigitalobjectidentifiers(DOIs)beingusedforall digitalobjects,includingdatasetsandcomponentsofcomplexobjects
SECTION ONE: THE WORKSHOP  21 1.8.8. Linking European and national levels TherearedefinedrelationshipsbetweentheCommission,theCouncilandMS,including possibleresponsesofMStoCommissionguidelines.DoMSneedguidanceonOpenAccess andpreservation?AttheleastthereisaneedtochangethinkingatMSlevel. Box 8: Next steps on linking European and national levels include: • T heCommissioncouldcoordinate,guideandname-and-shameinorderto createacommonunderstandinganddriveprogress • T heCommissionshoulddevelopaformalOpenAccessplan • O napracticallevel,theCommissionshouldimposeOpenAccessasa criterionforFPproposals 1.9  Priorities for the recommended actions ThefinalsessionoftheWorkshopfocusedononequestion:What elements should be part of an action plan for Open Access and preservation in Europe?Thenationalexperts suggestedactionareasandthesewerecollectedonamindmap. Nationalexpertswerethengivenfivevotestocastfortheactionareastheyconsideredof greatestpriority.TheoutcomeisshowninTable1.
22 SHARING KNOWLEDGE: OPEN ACCESS AND PRESERVATION IN EUROPE Table 1: Assignment of priority by national experts for action points developed in discussion Votes cast Action point in favour DevelopmentofstandardsforallaspectsofOpenAccess 13 Fundingforinfrastructuraldevelopments 12 CreationofnewmetricsforOpenAccesscontent(usagemeasures,successstories, 9 mediaimpact,citationimpact,etc) Makingthe‘Green’routetoopenAccess(throughrepositories)mandatory 8 Exploration of copyright laws in EU states with a view to recommending 8 modificationorcreatinganewlawonacademicresearchoutputs(whicharenot thesameasmusicandothercreativeoutputs)tosupportorpermitOpenAccess Revisitagreementswithpublisherstoachievepricetransparency,re-negotiateBig 8 Dealsandimprovetheproportionofpublishersthatallow‘Green’self-archivingin repositories Investmentine-researchinfrastructuresinEurope,especiallythosethatsupportthe 8 developmentoftheOpenDataagenda InvestmoreeffortindevelopmentoftechnologiesandenablersofOpenData 6 Supportforcoordinationactivitiestosupportadvocacyandothersupporting 5 actionsforOpenAccess InvestigationofnewbusinessmodelsapplicabletoOpenAccess(includingusing 5 opensourcetechnologiesandafocusonaddingvalue) Supportfurtherawareness-raisingactivities 5 Developmentofpoliciesatgovernment,funder,andinstitutionallevelacrossEurope 4 Developtechnicalinfrastructuretosupportpreservationofresearchoutputs 3 Developmentofincentivesforauthorsandpublisherstoincreasetheamountof 2 OpenAccesscontent DevelopmentofindicatorstodemonstratethebenefitsofOpenAccess 1 Identificationofexistinginitiativesandbuildinguponthem 1 Fundworkondataandmetadatacurationforthelong-term 1 DevelopmentoftoolstosupportdepositandcurationofcontentinOpenAccess 0 collections Encouragesharingofgoodpractices 0
Section TWO: Discussion of the outcomes
24 SHARING KNOWLEDGE: OPEN ACCESS AND PRESERVATION IN EUROPE ThissectiondiscussestherecommendedactionpointsoftheWorkshopinthecontext ofwhatalreadyexistsorisbeingdeveloped,andisdevelopedherebytheRapporteurfor theWorkshop.TheactionpointsrecommendedbytheWorkshopnationalexpertsare groupedunderaseriesofheadingsbelowfordiscussion.Todrawthingstogether,the actionpointshavebeengroupedinawaythatalignswiththeKey Success Factors (see Section1.7.3)thatweredistilledfromthefirstdayoftheWorkshopproceedings(these were:OApolicies,advocacyandculturalchange,infrastructure,fundingandcollaborative approaches).Theactionpointheadingswere: • Stakeholderengagement/involvement(advocacy) • Top-levelengagementandsupport(policydevelopment) • Collaborationsandpartnerships(coordination) • Implementationandmanifestations(infrastructure) Itisunsurprisingthatthedevelopmentofpoliciesandstakeholderengagementappeared astwokeyissuesfromdiscussionsonthefirstdayoftheWorkshop.Worldwide,these twoissuesarealsoattheforefrontofOpenAccessadvancesandEuropeannationswould notbeexpectedtobeanydifferent.Therearenearing200mandatoryOpenAccess policiescoveringjournalarticlesandconferencepapersaroundtheworld,andafurther 70+coveringmaster’sanddoctoraltheses.EUmemberStatesaccountforthegreater proportionofthesepolicies,anditiscorrecttosaythatEUnationshaveledtheway inthisrespect,forbothfunderandinstitutionalmandates.PoliciesfromtheEuropean CommissionandtheEuropeanResearchCouncilhavehelpedraiseawarenessingeneral, thoughmonitoringandfollow-upofthesepolicieshavestilltotakeplacesothattheir impactcanbeassessed. ThisrelativelyhighlevelofpolicydevelopmentdoesnotmeanthatOpenAccessis achievedintheEuropeanUnion,though.AstheWorkshopitself,theresponsetothe CRESTsurvey,andinformalmonitoringbyOpenAccesscommunityplayershaveshown, thereisstillmuchtodo.TheproportionofglobalresearchoutputsthataremadeOpen Accesshoversnowaround20%(Björket al,2010),uponly5%inthelastfiveyears.Possibly, theEuropeanUnionfigureishigherthanthisglobalaverage(ithasneverbeenmeasured), thoughitisextremelyunlikelytobemorethan25-35%.Mandatorypoliciesdosucceedin raisingthepercentagewell,achievingover50%insomecases(forexample,Universityof Minho,thefirstEuropeanUnionuniversitywithamandatoryOpenAccesspolicy,andthe London-basedWellcomeTrust,thefirstresearchfunderwithamandatorypolicy). Stakeholderengagementisanessentialpartofpolicydevelopment,ofcourse,and gettingtheattentionofpolicymakershasbeensuccessfullyachievedin,now,hundreds ofcases.ButtherearethousandsofuniversitiesandresearchinstitutesintheEU,and manyhundredsofresearchfundingagenciesthathavenotsofarengagedwiththe issueofOpenAccess.TheEuropeanUniversityAssociation’sRecommendationsonOpen Access(2009)tooktheissuetonearly800research-baseduniversitiesacrossEurope. Nonetheless,policieswerenotforthcomingasaresult.Attheinstitutionallevel,aswell asatfunderlevel,moreneedstobedone. Ininfrastructuralterms,theEUisdoingwell.Severalcountrieshavecreatedcoherent nationalnetworkedrepositoryinfrastructures,sometimeswithanational‘shopwindow’
SECTION TWO: DISCUSSION OF THE OUTCOMES   25 frontingthem.Infrastructurecanmeansofterthingstoo,though.Forexample,The Netherlandshasestablishedanationalauthoridentifierschemesothateveryresearcher inDutchuniversitiesnowhasauniqueidentity,enablinghisorherworkandoutputstobe discriminatedfromthatofotherswhomightbearthesamename2.Thisisanimportant stepforwardincreatingareallyworkable,usableresearchenvironmentforthedigital age.Thedevelopmentofatechnologythatallowsdepositintomultiplerepositorieswith asingleinputhasbeendevelopedintheUK3andthiseasestheproblemforauthorswish, orarerequiredasaresultofbeingundermorethanonemandatorypolicy,todeposittheir papersinmultiplecollections.Theyneedonlydepositinoneplaceandtheitemisthen copiedintootherlocationsbymachineprocesses. TherearemanyotherexampleswhereEuropeandevelopmentsareleadingthewayfor OpenAccessbutatthesametimethegoalofhavingallEuropeanoutputsfrompublicly- fundedresearchremainselusive.TheWorkshopwentontodebateanddiscusswhat concreteactionstheCommissionmighttaketofurtherthisaim. 2.1  Stakeholder engagement / involvement (advocacy) Theactionpointsfallingunderthisheadingare: • CreationofnewmetricsforOpenAccesscontent(usagemeasures,successstories, mediaimpact,citationimpact,etc) • DevelopmentofindicatorstodemonstratethebenefitsofOpenAccess • Supportfurtherawareness-raisingactivities • Developmentofincentivesforauthorsandpublisherstoincreasetheamountof OpenAccesscontent • Encouragesharingofgoodpractices Research metrics Somedevelopmentsontheissueofmetrics–whichthemselvesactasanincentivefor authorsandpublisherstoembraceOpenAccess–arealreadyunderway.Thedevelopment ofnewresearchmetricsisthesubjectofacurrentFP7Callandthereisaprojectinprocess atthemomentintheUSandCanadatodevelopnewmetricsthatapplytoOpenAccess monographsandoneoncitationanalysis.Inaddition,someplayersare,individually, introducingnewimpactmeasuresthathelptoincentiviseauthorsandreaders.One exampleisPLoSONE,publishedbythePublicLibraryofScience,whichhasintroduceda rangeofarticle-levelmetricsthatgiveauthorsfarmoreinformationabouthowtheirwork isbeingusedthanisprovidedbyanysubscription-basedjournal. Aconsiderablenumberofprojectsandserviceshaveorarebeingplannedtoprovideways ofassessingresearchthroughuseoftheOpenAccesscorpusinrepositories(seeBox9 2 h ttp://www.surffoundation.nl/en/themas/openonderzoek/infrastructuur/Pages/ digitalauthoridentifierdai.aspx 3 S WORD(SimpleWeb-serviceOfferingRepositoryDeposit)http://swordapp.org/
26 SHARING KNOWLEDGE: OPEN ACCESS AND PRESERVATION IN EUROPE below)andnewmetricsforassessingtheperformanceofrepositorieshavealsobeen proposed(Cassella,2010). Box 9: Resources on research metrics Overviewsofresearchmetricsdevelopedsofar: • OpenAccessScholarlyInformationSourcebook:Researchmetrics • Newmetricsforresearchoutputs:overviewofthemainissues.(2008) • U sagereportingandmetrics:listofexistinginitiatives,studies,projects anddevelopments(fromtheInternationalRepositoryInfrastructuresProject) • P restigeandprofilingmetrics:listofresearchandresearchprofilingand assessmentservices(fromtheInternationalRepositoryInfrastructuresProject) Indicators of Open Access benefits BenefitsfromOpenAccessaccruepotentiallytoanumberofstakeholders.Theresearch communityistheobviousone,butoutsidethisaretheprofessionalandpractitioner communitieswhoseworkisalsodependentupontheoutcomesoftheresearchcarried outinpublicly-fundeduniversitiesandresearchinstitutes.Thesecondaryandtertiary educationcommunities,sciencemediaandmembersofthepublicatlarge(‘othercurious minds’,astheBudapestOpenAccessInitiativeputit 4)arealsopotentialbeneficiaries.In all,accesstotheknowledgethatisbeingcreatedusingpublicmoneycanhelptocreatea well-informedpopulaceandbuildtheKnowledgeSociety. EarlyworktodemonstratethebenefitsofOpenAccessoutsideoftheresearchcommunity isgoingoninthisarea.Twostudieshavelookedatlevelsofaccesstoresearchinformation forSMEs(Ware,2009;Swan,2008)andfoundthemlessthansatisfactory:atleasttwo furtherstudiesarecurrentlyunderwayonthebenefitofaccesstoresearchoutputsfor SMEsandthesewillreportinthefirsthalfof2011. MeasurementofbenefitsfromOpenAccesstootherstakeholdercommunitiesisvery importantbutisnotyetbeingcarriedout.Norhaveanygoodindicatorsofbenefittoany stakeholdergroupyetbeendeveloped.Thefirststepistoachieveabetterunderstanding oftherelevanceandpotentialbenefitofaccesstoresearchoutputsbythedifferent stakeholdercommunities;thesecondstepistodevelopappropriateindicators(asmanyas possible),acknowledgingthatsomeofthesemaybemeasuringverylong-termoutcomes. Open Access advocacy AlthoughmucheffortcontinuestogointoOpenAccessadvocacyworkaroundtheworld, itisstillthecasethatresearchersandpolicymakersremainlargelyunawareoftheconcept and,eveniftheyclaimtobeaware,theydemonstratehighlevelsofignoranceand 4 http://www.soros.org/openaccess/read.shtml
SECTION TWO: DISCUSSION OF THE OUTCOMES   27 misunderstanding5.Someofthismaybeduetoincorrectinformationeitherinnocentlyor wilfullyprovidedtothem,butmostlyitisbecauseproperOAadvocacyeffortshavenot yetreachedtheirtargetcommunitieseffectively.Evenwhereaparticularcommunityhas receivedhigh-profileinformationandguidanceontheissue,awarenessremainswoefully low(Bardynet al,2010). ThisissuewashighlightedduringtheWorkshopandisencapsulatedintwooftheaction pointsattheheadofthissection.OneofthevaluableoutcomesoftheWorkshopwasthe opportunityfornationalexpertstosharetheirexperiencesofadvocacyandrelatewhat hasworkedwellandwhatnotsowell,identifyingtheproblemsanddiscussingwaysto overcomethem.Furthereventsandinitiativeswouldofferthechancetostimulatedeeper integrationbetweenMSwithrespecttoadvocacyactivities. 2.2  Top-level engagement and support (policy development) Theactionpointsfallingunderthisheadingare: • Makingthe‘Green’routetoOpenAccess(throughrepositories)mandatory • Developmentofpoliciesatgovernment,funder,andinstitutionallevelacross Europe • ExplorationofcopyrightlawsinEUstateswithaviewtorecommending modificationorcreatinganewlawonacademicresearchoutputs(whicharenot thesameasmusicandothercreativeoutputs)tosupportorpermitOpenAccess MandatorypoliciesonOpenAccessaretheprovenkeytoengenderinghighlevelsof OpenAccesscontent(Sale,2006).Anyotherkindofpolicy,howeverpersuasive,doesnot havethesameeffect,evenwhensupportedbyintenseadvocacyandpracticalsupport. Mandatorypolicies,aswellashavinganobligatoryelement,serveasawareness-raising toolsthemselves,especiallywhenimplementedalongwithsupportinginformationthat reassuresandencouragesauthors. Thereisalackofawarenessaboutthechangingfaceofscholarlycommunicationon thepartofpolicymakersthemselves,however,especiallyatinstitutionallevel.Though thenumbersofmandatorypoliciesintroducedininstitutionshasgrownconsiderably overthelastfewyears6,thishasbeenachievedonlybyintenseadvocacyeffortwithin institutionsandbyadvocacyorganisations.Governmentsandlargeresearchfunding 5 A surveyofmembersofUKlearnedsocietiesbytheAssociationofLearnedandProfessionalSociety Publishers(ALPSP)foundthatmostsaidtheyknewwhatOAwasandsupportedtheideaofOA journals,whilefewknewwhattheyweretalkingabout.‘[A]lthough60%saidthattheyreadOA journalsand25%thattheypublishedinthem,inbothcasesaroundone-thirdofthejournalsnamed werenotOA.”Inaddition“lessthanhalfknewwhatself-archivingwas;36%thoughtitwasagood ideaand50%wereunsure.Justunderhalfsaidtheyusedrepositoriesofself-archivedarticles,but 13%ofreferenceswerenotinfacttoself-archivingrepositories.29%saidtheyself-archivedtheirown articles,but10%ofreferenceswerenottopubliclyaccessiblesitesofanykind.’(FromtheSPARC Open Access Newsletter, January 2011, by Peter Suber: http://www.earlham.edu/~peters/fos/ newsletter/01-02-11.htm) 6 http://bit.ly/dyWWaA
28 SHARING KNOWLEDGE: OPEN ACCESS AND PRESERVATION IN EUROPE agenciessimilarlyneedtobemademoreawareoftheissuesandimportanceofopening upscholarshiptoachievegreaterbenefitsforthewidersociety.Thisremainsamajor issuetobetackled,bothatMSandatEuropeanlevel.Europeaninfluenceintheformof enablingsomecoordinationactivitiescouldhelp,andthereisacurrentFP7Calloutfor projectsinthisarea. Action is also urgently needed from the perspective of author (and funder and institutional)rights.ActionstoenableOpenAccessandpreservationrequirethatauthors haveappropriaterights.OneofthegreatestbarrierstoachievingOpenAccessisauthor uncertaintyoverwhattheyareallowedtodowithrespecttoself-archiving.Clarification ofthesituation(forauthorsandpolicymakers)regardingrightswouldhelpenormously, particularlyregardingwhatrightstheyneedtoretaintoenableOpenAccess.AtEuropean levelamostsignificantcontributioncouldbemadeifitcouldbeensuredthatcopyright lawcannotbeoverriddenbycontractlaw.Thiswouldupholdexceptionsforscholarly outputsandachieveabetterbalancebetweentheinterestsofthepartiesconcerned.The WorkshopnationalexpertsdiscussedandcalledforanewEuropeanlawinthisareato standardisethesituationacrossMSandclarifytheissueonceandforall. 2.3  Collaborations and partnerships (coordination) Theactionpointsfallingunderthisheadingare: • Revisitagreementswithpublisherstoachievepricetransparency,re-negotiateBig Dealsandimprovetheproportionofpublishersthatallow‘Green’self-archivingin repositories • CoordinationactivitiestosupportadvocacyandothersupportingactionsforOpen Access • Identifyexistinginitiativesandbuilduponthem • Encouragesharingofgoodpractices NegotiatingwithpublishersonpricingordealsisnotrelatedtoOpenAccesssothispoint willnotbediscussedfurtherhere. WithrespecttopublisherpermissionsforOpenAccessprovisionthroughrepositories, over60%ofjournalsallow‘Green’self-archivingofauthorpostprints(afterpeerreview) andafurther30%allowself-archivingoftheauthorpreprint(beforepeerreview)7.Yet theoverallproportionoftheliteraturethatisopenlyavailableisonlyaround20%and voluntaryself-archivingratesarenomorethanabout15%(thoughtherateishugely increasedonceaproperly-implementedmandatorypolicyisinplace).Improvementin self-archivingrateisnotpublisherpermission-dependent,therefore,butinsteadrequires changesinauthorbehaviour,policysupportand,importantly,clarificationoftheissues regarding rights (institutional, funder and author rights) with respect to scholarly informationwhichdiffersagreatdealfromothertypesofcreativeoutput.Thismatter hasbeendealtwithunderpolicydevelopment(Section3.2)above. 7 EPrintsRoMEO:Journalpolicies–summarystatistics:http://romeo.eprints.org/stats.php
SECTION TWO: DISCUSSION OF THE OUTCOMES   29 Asidefromthispoint,coordinationactivityatEuropeanlevelhasmuchpotentialbenefit inthedrivetoachieveOpenAccessandpreservationforscientificoutputs.Ontheone hand,thereisthedevelopmentofregistriesthatcollect,organiseandshareinformation abouttechnicalissuesorservicescancatalysedevelopmentsandhelpavoidduplication. TheseenhanceOpenAccessandpreservationandcontributetotheirdevelopment. Ontheotherhand,advocacyactivitiesgoonineveryMSbutlessonslearnedareoften notshared,andthereisclearlyconsiderableduplicationofeffortthatmightbenefitfrom somecollaborativeapproaches,especiallywithrespecttothecollectionandcontribution ofdatatotheevidencebase.CoordinationatrepositorylevelisnowprovidedbyCOAR (ConfederationofOpenAccessRepositories).Thereare,however,manynational-level advocacyprovidersinEuropethatworkmainlyinisolation.Futuresupportforactivities thataimtoprovidecoordinationandsupportforadvocacyworkacrossMScouldbevery beneficialforOpenAccessandforpreservationinitiatives. Box 10: Resources on collaborative and coordination activities • R egistries:listofexistinginitiatives,studies,projectsanddevelopments(from theInternationalRepositoryInfrastructuresProject) • Repositorysupportorganisations:Listoforganisationsandgroups(fromthe InternationalRepositoryInfrastructuresProject) 2.4  Implementation and manifestations (infrastructure) Theactionpointsfallingunderthisheadingare: • DevelopmentofstandardsforallaspectsofOpenAccess • Fundingforinfrastructuraldevelopments • Investmentine-researchinfrastructuresinEurope,especiallythosethatsupport thedevelopmentoftheOpenDataagenda • InvestmoreeffortindevelopmentoftechnologiesandenablersofOpenData • Developtechnicalinfrastructuretosupportpreservationofresearchoutputs • Fundworkondataandmetadatacurationforthelong-term • DevelopmentoftoolstosupportdepositandcurationofcontentinOpenAccess collections • InvestigationofnewbusinessmodelsapplicabletoOpenAccess(includingusing opensourcetechnologiesandafocusonaddingvalue) Standards and infrastructure StandardsenableinteroperabilityandareessentialforOpenAccesstobeimplemented effectively.Therehasalreadybeenprogressinthisarea.OAI-PMHandtheDublinCore metadatastandardunderpintheinteroperabilityofOpenAccessrepositories.Asetof
30 SHARING KNOWLEDGE: OPEN ACCESS AND PRESERVATION IN EUROPE de factostandardswithwhichOpenAccessjournalsmustcomplyhasbeendevelopedby OASPA. Enablinginfrastructuresalsoencompassissueslikepersistentidentifiers(forresearchers, researchoutputs,institutions).Alotofworkhasalreadygoneonintheseareas(seeBox 11below). With respect to e-research, Europe is well-advanced, thanks to the ambitious e-infrastructuresprogrammeinFP7fundingandcoordinatingthedevelopmentof internationally-competitiveinfrastructures8.Thesehavenotnecessarilybeendeveloped withtheissueofOpenDatatothefore,however,andadditionalthinkingmustbedoneto connecttheprovisionofplannedandexistinginfrastructurestotheneedsoftheresearch communityforfreelyaccessibledata. WhiletheoriginaldefinitionofOpenAccessreferredtothescholarlyliterature,researchhas subsequentlybecomemoredata-intensiveanddatasets(betheynumerical,graphical,audio orvideofiles,etc)arenowtheobjectofadriveforopenaccessibility,too–OpenData.There arealreadymanypoliciesfromresearchfundingagencies9coveringtheaccessibilityofdata createdduringworktheyhavefunded,andthenumberisexpectedtocontinuetogrow. Policiessupportculturechangeandthedevelopmentofgoodpractices,buttomaximise usefulnessofOpenData,datasetsmustbefindable,citableandavailableinthelongterm. Someinitiativeshavebeendevelopingaroundtheseissues,suchasmechanismstoenable theidentificationandcitingofdatasets(forexample,DataCite),onrightsofaccessto andre-useofdata(forexample,theOpenKnowledgeFoundation’sguides)andon preservationofresearchdataforthelongertermatinstitutionalandnationallevel(for example,theKeepingResearchDataSafeprojects).SomuchworkhasbeendoneonOpen Data-relatedtopicsoverthelast2-3yearsthatareasonableoverviewisoutofscopehere: thatinitselfindicatesthatworktocollateanddistilinformationaboutdevelopmentsand directionsinthisfieldwouldbeuseful. Furtherworkintheareasofinfrastructureandstandardswillbenecessary,butwhat maynotbecleartoallistheextentofachievementssofarandhowMSmightusethese todevelopOpenAccessandpreservationactivitiesmosteffectively.Here,coordinating activitiesatEuropeanUnionlevelcouldbebeneficial.Whatismissingistheeffective joining-upofaratherfragmentedsystem:thereareinitiativesthataimtolinkdataand journalarticles,dataandrepositories,andrepositoriesandjournals.Butthesearebeing executedinpiecemealfashionwithlittleornocoordination.Thiscanmeanduplication ofeffortormissedopportunitiestoexploitsynergies.Data-drivenand‘liquid’publication may be the best opportunities to make progress on this issue as they will require connectionsacrossinfrastructuralcomponentsofthesystem. 8 http://cordis.europa.eu/fp7/ict/e-infrastructure/ 9 http://www.sherpa.ac.uk/juliet/
SECTION TWO: DISCUSSION OF THE OUTCOMES   31 Preservation Preservationissomethingthathaslargelyfallentonationallibrariesorothersimilar national-level organisations to tackle, though there are significant players on an internationalscale,too.Whilesomeacademicpublishershavecommendablytaken stepstoenterintoarrangementswithnationallibraries(e.g.Elsevier’se-archiving arrangementwiththeRoyalLibraryinTheNetherlands),thesearefew,andpreservation isanywayamatterbestconfrontedinternationally.Somenotableinitiativesintheareaof preservationincludetheDigitalCurationCentreintheUK(whichspecialisesinresearch data),DigitalPreservationEurope,theNationalDigitalInformationandInfrastructure PreservationProgram(USA),andtheInternetArchive. Preservationmetadataisanotherareathathasreceivedconsiderableattentionalready (seepreservationresourceslinkinBox11fordetails).Standardshavebeendevelopedfor textualinformationatleast,thoughmoreworkwillbeneededinthecaseofdatainsome disciplines. Researcharticlesarecurrentlypreservedbypublishers,libraries,e-journalarchiving infrastructuressuchasCLOCKSS(ControlledLOCKSS)andrepositories.Digitaldatasetsare preservedbyamyriadofplayersfromthelargeinternationaldatabanksthroughnational datacentres,disciplinarydatacollections,institutionsandsub-institutionalentitiesdown toindividualresearchersortheirgroups.Someofthisdatapreservationiswell-organised andresultsinatrustedprovisionbutthisisnotthecaseoverall.Theestablishmentofthe OpenPlanetsFoundation(whichgrewoutofthePlanetsproject)hasgonealongwayin takingacoordinatingroleandofferingtoolsandmethodologiesforbestpracticewith thedevelopmentofaglobalviewandapproachtopreservationofdigitalinformation. Suchinitiativesmayhavearoleinhelpinguniversitiestotakeresponsibilityforpreserving researchinformationintheirownsphere. Thetechnicalinfrastructureforpreservationofbothresearcharticlesanddataisbeing assembled,then,butthereremainrelativelyloworunclearlevelsoftrust.Long-term accessalsorequiresashiftinbusinessmodelsandculturalpracticesand,moreover,must berootedinthenormsofscholarlybehaviourandthedigitaltechnologiesthatprevail: thesechange,andthatchangemustbeaccommodatedbypreservationsolutions. Workremainstobedoneinthisarea,especiallyintheareaofpolicyandlegalframeworks, andindeterminingsuitablebusinessmodels(seebelowforthistopic).Legaldepositand orphanworkslegislationarerelevanthereandneedtobesupportedbyfurtherareas ofexceptionifacademicresearchistobeproperlyandfullypreserved.Jurisdictional differenceswillneedtobeaddressedinthiscontext. Deposit and curation of Open Access collections Thereisnodoubtthateasingtheprocessofdepositwillhelptoovercomeresearchers’ reluctancetoself-archivetheiroutputs.Enteringmetadataintoarepositorydeposit systemistime-consuming(thoughnotasmuchasisbelievedbythosewhohavenever tried(Carr,HarnadSwan,2007))andfarlessinterestingthangettingonwiththe researchitself.Requiringresearcherstodepositonceisaburdentheycanjustaboutbear
32 SHARING KNOWLEDGE: OPEN ACCESS AND PRESERVATION IN EUROPE iftheyareconvincedofthemeritsofdoingso:requiringthemtodepositthesameitem morethanonceismostunwiseandcandamagethecauseofOpenAccess.Anumberof projectshaveaddressedthisissueofmultipledepositandsometechnologieshavebeen developedthatenablerepository-to-repositoryexchangeofcontent. Theearlierworkinthisareawasmostlyforpreservationpurposes,butmorerecentwork hasappliedtodepositofnewscholarlycontent.Examplesarethedevelopmentofthe SWORDprotocol10,enhancementsofthat11,andtechnologiesthatcanstreammetadata frominstitutionalrepositoriestoappropriatedisciplinaryorsubject-basedrepositories andvice versa12.SONEX(ScholarlyOutputNotificationAndExchange)isbuildingonthis workbyidentifyingandanalysingdepositusecases13. Alliedtodepositistheissueofhigher-levelcollectionandpresentationofOpenAccess content.AnewinitiativeinthisregardisOpenAIRE,therepositorybuilttocollectthe outputsfromFP7andfutureFrameworkProgrammeresearchprogrammes.OpenAIRE willcollectcontentbyharvestingfromlocalrepositories(inuniversitiesandresearch institutes),theoptimalarrangementforanationalorinternationalshowcase(Swanet al, 2005).Thismeansthatinstitutionalcollectionsbenefitfromthelocaldepositofmaterial andharvestingfornationalorinternationalservicescanthenbecarriedout.National repositorieshavebeenbuiltonthispatterninmanyEUstates,includingIreland,Spain andtheNetherlands. Business models Ingeneral,existing(‘traditional’)businessmodelsforaccessandpreservationofscholarly contentdonotalignwellwiththeimperativeforOpenAccess.Itcanbearguedthat realignmentisessentialintheinterestsofEuropeanresearch,commerceandsociety. Certainlythe‘InnovationUnion’cannotbeachievedwithouttrueOpenAccesstoscientific information.WherestructuresandpracticesarenowinplacetosupportOpenAccess andrelatedprinciples,theyaretoofrequentlyonthebasisofprojectsorservicesthat arereliantonshort-termfunding,withnosustainablebusinessmodeltoensurelong- termviability.Newthinkingisneededinthisarea,basedontheprinciplethataccessand preservationareintegralelementsoftheresearchprocessinwhichpublicinterestis significant,andnotanoptionalextrafundedpatchilyandwithoutcoordinatedplanning. 10 h ttp://swordapp.org/SWORDdevelopedastandarddepositinterfaceandthemechanismtodeposit tomultiplelocations 11 Forexample,EasyDeposit:http://easydeposit.swordapp.org/ 12 F orexample,Open-Access-Fachrepositorien:http://www.ub.uni-konstanz.de/bibliothek/projekte/ open-access-fachrepositorien.html 13 http://sonexworkgroup.blogspot.com/
SECTION TWO: DISCUSSION OF THE OUTCOMES   33 Box 11: Resources on digital preservation • P ersistentidentifiers:listofexistinginitiatives,studies,projectsand developments(fromtheInternationalRepositoryInfrastructuresProject) • A uthoridentifiers:listofexistinginitiatives,studies,projectsand developments(fromtheInternationalRepositoryInfrastructuresProject) • I nstitutionidentifiers:listofexistinginitiatives,studies,projectsand developments(fromtheInternationalRepositoryInfrastructuresProject) • R epositoryharvestingsystems:listofexistinginitiatives,studies,projectsand developments(fromtheInternationalRepositoryInfrastructuresProject) • P reservation:listofexistinginitiatives,studies,projectsand developments(fromtheInternationalRepositoryInfrastructuresProject) • JISC’sdigitalpreservationprogramme:http://www.jisc.ac.uk/preservation
Section THREE:  Recommendations
36 SHARING KNOWLEDGE: OPEN ACCESS AND PRESERVATION IN EUROPE TheserecommendationshavebeendevelopedbytheRapporteurfromthediscussionsat theWorkshop.ThestructureofthissectionprimarilyfollowsthatofSection2(discussion oftheoutcomesoftheWorkshop)ofthereport,thoughthereisnotaseparatesection hereforcoordinationactivities.Instead,coordinationactivitiesarerecommendedunder variousheadingsbelow,sincecoordinationapproachesarecross-cuttinginnature. 3.1  Advocacy Coordinationofadvocacyeffortscouldsupportandimprovetheeffectivenessofthe currentMS-levelefforts.TheWorkshopwasagoodfirststep,bringingtogethernational expertsandEUofficialstoshare,learnanddevelopnetworks.Improvedadvocacyin Europecouldresultfromtwothings–coordinationofexistingefforts,andUnion-wide advocacyonaplannedbasiswithcleartargetsandgoals. Recommendation 1: BuildonwhatwasachievedbytheWorkshoptostrengthenthe nascentnetworkandenableandencouragefurtherinteractionsandcollaborations (coordination) Recommendation 2:Encourageandsupportinitiativesthataimtodevelopadvocacy programmesacrosstheUnion Recommendation 3: Fundthedevelopmentofindicatorsthatbetterassessscientific progressandmeasurethebenefittostakeholdercommunitiesacrosssociety 3.2  Policy Policy development is slow because policymakers are not sufficiently alert to the importanceofOpenAccess.Whereithappensitisinpiecemealfashion.Allthosewith alegitimateinterestinscientificinformation(universities,researchinstitutions,research fundingagencies,governments)havearesponsibilitytodevelop,fundandimplement coordinatedpolicestoenableOpenAccessandpreservation. Recommendation 4: EnablecoordinationofpolicyatEuropeanlevel Recommendation 5:Encourageandsupportinitiativesthataimtoincreaseawarenessand understandingoftheissuesaroundOpenAccessandpreservationatpolicymakerlevels 3.3  Rights AppropriaterightsarerequiredtoenableOpenAccessandpreservationbutthecurrent situationisunclearorevenprohibitive.Stakeholdersneedtobebetterappraisedof theissues:Europeancoordinationonclarifyingandagreeingtherightsrequiredwould providethemostelegantsolution.
SECTION THREE: RECOMMENDATIONS  37 Recommendation 6:Informandencourageauthorsandinstitutions(andfunderswhere appropriate)toretaintherightsthatarenecessarytoprovideOpenAccessandenable adequatepreservationofscientificoutputs Recommendation 7:Enableasharedunderstandingacrossallstakeholders(researchers, institutions,funders,librariesandpublishers)ofthelegalterminologyandconcepts involved 3.4  Infrastructure Whilemanyelementsoftheinfrastructureneededforaccesstoandpreservationof scientificinformationarenowinplace,theoverallpictureremainsfragmented.MS-level initiativescanbecomplementedandenhancedbyEuropeancoordination,withtheadded advantageofpotentialsavingsinexpenditure. Recommendation 8: Build upon the investment in OpenAIRE by further enabling coordinateddevelopmentsthatjoinupemerginginfrastructurestomaximumeffect 3.5  Business models Currently,manyofthecomponents–theinfrastructureinitswidestsense,including servicesandtechnologicaldevelopments–supportingandenablingOpenAccess(and,to aslightlylesserextent,preservation)arefoundedonshort-termfunding,projectfunding oronvoluntaryeffort.Sustainabilityiscriticalandmustbeaddressed. Recommendation 9:ProvideEuropean-levelguidanceandleadershiptoMSonthe principleofthelong-termnecessityandbenefitofaccesstoandpreservationofscientific information Recommendation 10:Examinethelong-termprospectsfortheinfrastructuralbasis forOpenAccesssofardevelopedinEurope.Assessthisinthecontextofcreatinga coordinated,viable,sustainablesystemthatwillenablethecreationoftheInnovation Unionoverthenext15years
38 SHARING KNOWLEDGE: OPEN ACCESS AND PRESERVATION IN EUROPE References Bardyn,T,Brennan,M,Camp,PP,Carter,J,andFarb,S(2010)MeasuringCapacityand EffectivenessofNIHPublicAccessPolicyProgrammingasaModelforOpenAccess. PresentationattheEvidenceBasedScholarlyCommunicationConference,March11-12, 2010,inAlbuquerque,USA. http://repository.unm.edu/bitstream/handle/1928/11002/Bardyn_ EBSCC2010BardynPaperSlides%20corrected.pdf?sequence=1 Björk,B-C,Welling,P,Laakso,M,Majlender,P,Hedlund,TandGudnasson,G(2010). OpenAccesstotheScientificJournalLiterature:Situation2009.PloSOne,23.6.2010. http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0011273 Carr,L.,Harnad,S.andSwan,A.(2007)ALongitudinalStudyofthePracticeofSelf- Archiving.http://eprints.ecs.soton.ac.uk/13906/ Cassella,M(2010)InstitutionalRepositories:aninternalandexternalperspectiveonthe valueofIRsforresearchers’communities.Liber Quarterly 20(2),October2010. http://liber.library.uu.nl/ CounciloftheEuropeanUnion(2007)CouncilConclusionsonscientificinformationin thedigitalage:access,disseminationandpreservation.2832nd COMPETITIVENESS (Internal market, Industry and Research) Council meeting, Brussels, 22 and 23 November 2007. http://www.consilium.europa.eu/ueDocs/cms_Data/docs/pressData/en/intm/97236.pdf EuroHORCsandtheEuropeanScienceFoundation(2008)Visiononagloballycompetitive EuropeanResearchAreaandroadmapforactionstohelpbuildit.http://eurohorcs.drift. senselogic.se/download/18.45b270a411a9ed8e12780003647/EUROHORCs_ESF_ERA_ RoadMap.pdf EuropeanCommission(2006)Studyontheeconomicandtechnicalevolutionofthe scientificmarketsinEurope. http://ec.europa.eu/research/science-society/pdf/scientific-publication-study_en.pdf EuropeanCommission(2007a)CommunicationonScientificInformationintheDigital Age:Access,DisseminationandPreservation. http://search.yahoo.com/r/_ ylt=A0oG7h8.U49NSEQAEsxXNyoA;_ ylu=X3oDMTB yMTNuNTZzBHNlYwNzcgRwb3MDMgRjb2xvA2FjMgR2dGlkAw--/SIG =13kfjh01f/ EXP=1301267390/**http%3a//ec.europa.eu/research/science-society/document_library/ pdf_06/communication-022007_en.pdf EuropeanCommission(2007b)GreenPaperontheEuropeanResearchArea. EuropeanUniversityAssociation(2008)RecommendationsfromtheEUAWorkingGroup onOpenAccess. http://www.eua.be/eua-work-and-policy-area/research-and-innovation/open-access/
REFERENCES  39 Houghton,J.,Steele,C.andSheehan,P.2006.ResearchCommunicationCostsinAustralia: EmergingOpportunitiesandBenefits,ReporttotheDepartmentofEducation,Science andTraining,Canberra. http://dspace.anu.edu.au/handle/1885/44485 Houghton,J.W.,Rasmussen,B.,Sheehan,P.J.,Oppenheim,C.,Morris,A.,Creaser,C., Greenwood,H.,Summers,M.andGourlay,A.(2009)EconomicImplicationsofAlternative ScholarlyPublishingModels:ExploringtheCostsandBenefits,ReporttoTheJoint InformationSystemsCommittee(JISC). http://www.cfses.com/EI-ASPM/ Houghton,JohnandSheehan,Peter(2006)TheEconomicImpactofEnhancedAccessto ResearchFindings.CSESWorkingPaperNo.23,VictoriaUniversity,Melbourne(August 2006). http://www.cfses.com/documents/wp23.pdf Houghton,JohnandSheehan,Peter(2009)EstimatingthePotentialImpactsofOpen AccesstoResearchFindings.EconomicAnalysisPolicy.39 (1),1March. http://www.eap-journal.com/download.php?file=696 http://ec.europa.eu/research/era/consultation-era_en.html#greenpaper ht tp : //e c .europa.eu /research /science -so cie t y/do cument _librar y/p d f_ 06/ communication-022007_en.pdf http://ec.europa.eu/research/science-society/pdf/scientific-publication-study_en.pdf Knowledge Exchange (2009) Open Access – what are the economic benefits? AcomparisonoftheUnitedKingdom,NetherlandsandDenmark. http://www.knowledge-exchange.info/Default.aspx?ID=316 Parvan,S-V(2007)StatisticsinFocus:Scienceandtechnology,81/2007.http://epp. eurostat.ec.europa.eu/cache/ITY_OFFPUB/KS-SF-07-081/EN/KS-SF-07-081-EN.PDF Sale,A(2006)‘TheAcquisitionofOpenAccessResearchArticles.’First Monday 11,no.10. http://firstmonday.org/htbin/cgiwrap/bin/ojs/index.php/fm/article/view/1409 Swan,A.(2008)StudyontheavailabilityofUKacademic‘greyliterature’toUKSMEs: ReporttotheJISCScholarlyCommunicationsGroup. http://eprints.ecs.soton.ac.uk/17667/ Swan,A.(2008)StudyontheavailabilityofUKacademic‘greyliterature’toUKSMEs. ReportfortheJISC. http://eprints.ecs.soton.ac.uk/17667/ Swan,A.(2010)Modellingscholarlycommunicationoptions:costsandbenefitsfor universities. Technical Report, Scholarly Communications Group, Joint Information SystemsCommittee.http://eprints.ecs.soton.ac.uk/18584/
40 SHARING KNOWLEDGE: OPEN ACCESS AND PRESERVATION IN EUROPE Swan,A.,Needham,P.,Probets,S.,Muir,A.,Oppenheim,C.,O’Brien,A.,Hardy,R.and Rowland,F.(2005)Delivery,ManagementandAccessModelforE-printsandOpenAccess JournalswithinFurtherandHigherEducation. http://eprints.ecs.soton.ac.uk/11001/ Ware,M(2009)AccessbyUKsmallandmedium-sizedenterprisestoprofessionaland academicinformation. http://www.publishingresearch.net/SMEaccess.htm Ware,M.(2009)AccessbyUKsmallandmedium-sizedenterprisestoprofessional and academic literature, Publishing Research Consortium, Bristol. http://www. publishingresearch.net/SMEaccess.htm
Appendices
42 SHARING KNOWLEDGE: OPEN ACCESS AND PRESERVATION IN EUROPE APPENDIX ONE: Workshop participants National experts: Goran Bogdanovic Ministry for Education and Research (SE) EU Bureau of the German Federal Ministry of Alexandra Burgholz Education and Research (DE) Centre for Open Electronic Publishing - CLEO Marin Dacos (FR) Elena Giglia University of Turin (IT) Iveta Gudakovska Library of the University of Latvia (LV) Fridrika Hardardottir Ministry of Education, Science and Culture (IS) Danish Agency for Science, Technology and Grete Kladakis Innovation (DK) Spanish Foundation for Science and Izaskun Lacunza Aguirrebengoa Technology (ES) Eric Laureys Federal Science Policy Office - BELSPO (BE) Wieslaw Majos Ministry of Science and Higher Education (PL) Biotechnology and Biological Sciences David McAllister Research Council (UK) Archimedes Foundation/Estonian Libraries Marika Meltsas Network Consortium (EE) Ministry of Science, Technology and Higher Ana Christina Neves Education (PT) Vit Novacek DERI, National University of Ireland Galway (IE) Ministry of Education, Culture and Science Louise Perbal (NL) Žibutė Petrauskienè Vilnius University Library (LT) Paraskevi Sachini National Hellenic Research Foundation (GR) Austrian Federal Ministry of Science and Peter Seitz Research (AT) Ministry of Higher Education, Science and Petra Tramte Technology (SI) Czech Liaison Office for Research and Anna Vosečková Development – CZELO (CZ) Slovak Centre of Scientific and Technical Mária Žitňanská Information (SK)
APPENDIX ONE: WORKSHOP PARTICIPANTS  43 The European Commission • Jean-MichelBaer,DGRTD,AdvisortotheDirectorGeneral • Jean-FrançoisDechamp,DGRTDUnitB6 • FrancescoFusaro,DGRTDUnitB6 • GillesLaroche,DGRTDUnitB6,HeadofUnit • MatthieuKleinschmager,DGHR,UnitB3 • Alexis-MichelMugabushaka,EuropeanResearchCouncilExecutiveAgency,A.1 • TheodorePapazoglou,EuropeanResearchCouncilExecutiveAgency,A.1,HeadofUnit • JuanPelegrin,DGINFSO,UnitE4 • CarlosMoraisPires,DGINFSO,UnitF3 • CelinaRamjoué,DGRTDUnitB6 • LorenzaSaracco,DGRTD,UnitB3 • JarkkoSiren,DGINFSO,UnitF3 • EcaterinaStamate,DGRTD,UnitJ4 Rapporteur:AlmaSwan,EnablingOpenScholarship(EOS)andKeyPerspectivesLtd
44 SHARING KNOWLEDGE: OPEN ACCESS AND PRESERVATION IN EUROPE APPENDIX TWO:  The format of the Workshop TheWorkshopemployedseveralmethodsforensuringthatparticipantswereableto shareandcontributefullyintheproceedings: Landscape:AvisualrepresentationoftheWorkshopwascreatedanddisplayedonthe wallforthedurationoftheevent.Thisrepresentationcapturedtheflowofactivities thatwasproposedfortheeventsothatnationalexpertscouldseehowtheeventwould developoverthetwodays. World Café:WorldCafésessionsinvolvednationalexpertsinsmall-group(fourpeople) conversationsaroundtablesonwhichtherewasalwaysplentyofpaperandpensto recordkeyinsightsandideas(www.theworldcafe.com). The Circle: nationalexpertssatinalargecirclewithnoobvious‘head’andwithno orderingofseating.TheCircleechoesancientandtraditionalformsofhumangathering for discussion and decision-making (www.artofhosting.org/thepractice/methods/ circlepractise/) Pro-Action Café: nationalexpertsgatherinacircleandindividualsvolunteertohost small-groupdiscussionsonaparticulartopic.Thesevolunteer‘hosts’eachremainatone ofthetablesintheWorldCafé,whileotherparticipantsmovefromtabletotable,taking theopportunitytoengageindiscussionsonaselectionoftopics.Thehostsrecordthe mainissuesarisingindiscussionsattheirowntable,forlaterreportingtothewholegroup. Check-in, Check-out: usedinthiscasesystematicallyatthebeginningandendofthe days’proceedings,thisinvolvesnationalexpertssittinginacircleandrespondingtoa keyquestionthatoneoftheleadersposes.Theaimistogatherexperiences/thoughts togetherandencouragesomeconsolidationofthinking. Collective mind map:amindmapisconstructedinrealtimeasparticipantsoffer reflections,suggestionsandideas.ItwasusedinthisWorkshopattheveryend,tocollect suggestionsforthemostimportantissues.Participantsthenvotedforthe5issuesmost importantintheirview.Thisenabledtheconstructionofanoverallrankingofprioritiesfor futureconcreteactionsonOpenAccessandpreservation.
APPENDIX THREE: OPEN ACCESS – THE EUROPEAN CONTEXT  45 APPENDIX THREE: Open Access – The european context Thissectionwillprovideabriefoverviewofthebackgroundtotheworkshop,specifically: • Thestudyonscientificinformationinthedigitalage,2006(EuropeanCommission, 2006) • Theconferenceresultingfromthestudy,February2007 14 • TheCouncilConclusions,2007(CounciloftheEuropeanUnion,2007) • TheCREST(Comité de la recherche scientifique et technique;inEnglish:Scientificand TechnicalResearchCommittee)surveyofmembersin2008 • ThesessiononOpenAccessandpreservationintheERAconferenceonthefuture ofscienceinEurope(2009) 15 Does scientific publishing work well? Becausescientificpublishingmodelsderivefromtheprint-on-paperage,thepredominant businessmodelissubscription-based.Mostuniversitylibrariescanaffordsubscriptionsto onlyaproportionoftheseandlackofaccessremainsamajorimpedimenttotheworkof mostresearchers,eveninresearch-intensive,developedcountries16. Interestinimprovingthesharingofscientificinformationgrewmarkedlywhen,in2004, theEuropeanCommissionembarkeduponanexaminationofthescientificpublishing marketinEurope.In2006,theresultant‘Study on the economic and technical evolution of the scientific markets in Europe’(EuropeanCommission,2006)waspublished. Subsequentdebateonhowtoimproveaccessanddisseminationforscientificoutputs engagedtheresearchcommunityandotherstakeholders,includingataconferenceonthe topicinFebruary2007.Theresearchcommunitymadeitsvoiceheardatthistimeinthe formof18,500signaturesgatheredinfourweeksforapetition,organisedbytheKnowledge Exchangepartnership,callingfortheCommissiontoimplementarecommendationfrom theStudythattheCommissionguaranteethatresultsfrompublicly-fundedresearchbe madepublicly-accessibleshortlyafterpublication17.Fouryearslater,thepetitioncontinues togathersignatures[thenumberofsignatoriesinearly2011isaround28,000]. TheoutcomeoftheoverallexercisewastheadoptionbytheCommissionofaCommunication on Scientific Information in the Digital Age: Access, Dissemination and Preservation,apolicy documentannouncingaseriesofmeasuresthatincludedexperimentingwithOpenAccess 14 E uropeanCommissionpressrelease:Scientificinformationinthedigitalage:Ensuringcurrentand futureaccessforresearchandinnovationhttp://europa.eu/rapid/pressReleasesAction.do?reference= IP/07/190format=HTMLaged=0language=ENguiLanguage=en 15 h ttp://ec.europa.eu/research/conferences/2009/era2009/index_en.htm 16 ‘ …manyresearchersareencounteringdifficultiesingettingaccesstothecontenttheyneedandthat thisishavingasignificantimpactontheirresearch.’Press Release: Overcoming barriers,Research InformationNetwork,London(2009).Availablehttp://www.rin.ac.uk/our-work/using-and-accessing- information-resources/overcoming-barriers-access-research-information.Seealsothefullreport: http://www.rin.ac.uk/system/files/attachments/Sarah/Overcoming-barriers-report-Dec09_0.pdf 17 h ttp://www.ec-petition.eu/
46 SHARING KNOWLEDGE: OPEN ACCESS AND PRESERVATION IN EUROPE andfundinge-infrastructures(EuropeanCommission,2007).TheCommissionhassince enactedsomeofthemeasures.ThereisafulllistofOpenAccess-relatedactivitiesonthe Commission’swebsite18.Themeasuresincludethefundingofaseriesofprojects,including LiquidPublications19,SOAP(StudyofOpenAccessPublishing)20 ;PEER(Publishingandthe EcologyofEuropeanresearch)21 ;OAPEN22,NECOBELACandothers;amandatorypolicyon providingOpenAccessfor20%ofoutputsfromFP7-fundedresearchandthefundingofa Europeanrepositoryande-infrastructure,OpenAIRE23,tohousetheseoutputs.TheEuropean ResearchCouncil,whichwaslaunchedinearly2007witha€7.5billionbudget,hasdeveloped apolicyonOpenAccessforresearchoutputsfromtheworkitfunds. TheCommissionhasnotbeentheonlyinfluentialactor.ECdevelopmentsweretakingplace againstabackdropofpolicyactivity–boldapproaches–onthepartofresearchfundersinthe ERAandelsewhere.In2006,sixofthesevenUKresearchcouncils,theircounterpartinAustria, andAustralia’stworesearchcouncilsallintroducedmandatorypoliciesonOpenAccess. Duringthefollowingyear,14morefundersfollowedsuit,elevenoftheminERA(includingthe newly-establishedEuropeanResearchCouncil),oneinCanadaandtwointheUSincluding, notably,theNationalInstitutesofHealth,theworld’slargestresearchfundingbody. Morerecently,furtherbodieshavedeclaredtheirsupportfor,andreinforcedtheimportance of,OpenAccess,includingtheEuropeanUniversityAssociation(EuropeanUniversity Association)andEuroHORCs(EuropeanHeadsofResearchCouncils)andtheEuropean ScienceFoundation(EuroHORCsandEuropeanScienceFoundation).Therearenowat least257mandatoryOpenAccesspoliciesinforcefromresearchfunders(46policies), universitiesandresearchinstitutes(108policies)andindividualdepartments,facultiesor schoolsinresearch-basedinstitutions(29policies)24.Mandatorypoliciescoveringdoctoral andmaster’stheseshavealsobeenintroducedinsomeinstitutions(73policies). Economic issues AlongsidetheseOpenAccess-relateddevelopments,otherplayerswereconnectingaccess toscientificinformationwitheconomics.InAustralia,JohnHoughtonandhiscolleagues conductedaseriesofstudiesontheeconomicsofscholarlycommunicationandpublished resultsindicatingthatOpenAccesswouldprovidebothefficiencyimprovementsand monetarysavingsinscholarlycommunication(Houghtonet al,2006;Houghton Sheehan,2006;HoughtonSheehan,2009).Houghton’srecentstudydemonstrating thecosts,benefitsandeconomicadvantagesofOpenAccessonanationalbasisforthe 18 http://ec.europa.eu/research/science-society/open_access 19 http://project.liquidpub.org/ 20 http://project-soap.eu/ 21 http://www.peerproject.eu/ 22 http://www.oapen.org 23 http://www.openaire.eu/ 24 R egistryofOpenAccessRepositoryMaterialArchivingPolicies: http://www.eprints.org/openaccess/policysignup/
APPENDIX THREE: OPEN ACCESS – THE EUROPEAN CONTEXT  47 UK(Houghtonet al,2009),hasbeenextendedtootherEUcountries(TheNetherlands andDenmark)(KnowledgeExchange,2009)andtoindividualinstitutions(Swan,2010). IneverycaseOpenAccessattainedthroughOpenAccessjournals(‘OApublishing’)or throughOpenAccessrepositorieshasbeenshowntobemorecosteffectivethanthe currentsubscription-based,access-restrictionsystem. Meanwhile,inrespectofknowledge-sharingbetweenpublicresearchandindustry,a desirablegoalfortheERA(seenextsection),theEU’sownCommunity Innovation Survey wasshowingthatthereisa‘weaklinkbetweeninnovativeenterprises(mainlysmall- andmediumsizedenterprises,SMEs)andpublicresearchinstitutes/universities’and that‘innovativeenterprisesfindcooperationpartnersmoreeasilyamongsuppliersor customersthaninuniversitiesorpublicresearchinstitutes’(Parvan,2007). TwostudiesonaccessibilityofuniversityresearchtoSMEshavebeenconductedrecently.In astudyof186SMEs,Wareshowedthatwhile71%ofrespondentsininnovativecompanies findaccessingarticlesfairly/veryeasy,two-thirds(66%)ofrespondentspayforaccess intheformofsubscriptionsorsocietymembershipswhichis,ofcourse,easybutcostly. Thereisalsotheremainder,‘bydefinition,aminority(29%)forwhomaccesswasfairlyor verydifficult’(Ware,2009).Inasmallerstudyontheeaseofaccess23SMEstothe‘grey’ academicliterature(unpublishedreports,workingpapers,thesesanddissertations),Swan reportedthatSMEshadproblemsdiscoveringrelevantgreyliterature,andinaccessing publishedliterature(forreasonsofcost)(Swan,2008). The ERA Green Paper SevenyearsafterthecreationoftheERAtheCommissionpublishedaGreenPaper (EuropeanCommission,2007b)assessingprogressmadeandstimulatingdiscussion anddebateaboutthefutureorientationofERA.TheGreenPaperoutlinedsixfeatures neededby‘thescientificcommunity,businessandcitizens’thatERAshouldhave,oneof thembeing‘effective knowledge-sharing, notably between public research and industry, as well as with the public at large’.Alsoofrelevancetoknowledge-sharingisanotherof thefeatures,‘opening the European Research Area to the world with special emphasis on
48 SHARING KNOWLEDGE: OPEN ACCESS AND PRESERVATION IN EUROPE neighbouring countries and a strong commitment to addressing the global challenges with Europe’s partners’25. TwoofthequestionsthattheGreenPaperposedinordertostimulateknowledge-sharing werethese: • IsthereaneedforEU-levelpoliciesandpracticestoimproveandensureOpen Accesstoanddisseminationofrawdataandpeer-reviewedpublicationsfrom publiclyfundedresearchresults? • WhatshouldconstituteaEuropeanFrameworkforknowledgesharingbetween researchinstitutionsandindustrybasedonidentifiedgoodpracticeandmodels? ThesearecorequestionsthatresurfacedintheWorkshop.Headlinefindingsfromthe responsestotheGreenPaperthatshowedthat68%ofrespondentsthinkthatraw datafrompublicly-fundedresearchshouldbemademorereadilyaccessible,theseand moresuggestingthatEU-levelcollectionsarethepreferredlocation.Sixty-fivepercent ofthetotalrespondentpopulationthinksthatpeer-reviewedpublicationsresulting frompublicly-fundedresearchshouldbeaccessiblewithoutcharge(includedinthis respondentgrouparepublishers,71%ofwhomdisagreewiththisstatement).And65% ofrespondents(presumablymostlythesame65%)alsobelievethatthesepublications shouldbeavailablewithoutchargeassoonastheyarepublished. Council Conclusions Latein2007,theCounciloftheEuropeanUnionadopteditsConclusions on Scientific Information in the Digital Age: Access, Dissemination and Preservation(Councilofthe EuropeanUnion,2007).ThisdocumentcalleduponMemberStatestoreinforce national strategies and structures for access to and dissemination of scientific information,and pledgedtoenhance the co-ordination between Member States on access and dissemination policies and practicesandtoensure the long term preservation of scientific information – including publications and data – and pay due attention to scientific information in national preservation strategies. 25 R elevant statements contained in the Green paper in reference to the topic of Knowledge Sharing are: ‘State-of-the-art knowledge is crucial for successful research in any scientific discipline. Reliable, affordable and permanent access to, and widespread dissemination of, scientific research results should therefore become defining principles for Europe’s research landscape.Thedigitalerahasopenedupnumerouspossibilitiesinthisrespect.Opportunities forprogresscanbeseen,notablyinthedevelopmentofonlinelibraries,repositoriesofscientific informationanddatabasesofpublicationsandpubliclyfundedresearchresults.Theseshould be integrated at European level and interlinked with similar databases in third countries. In particular,thesystembywhichscientificinformationispublishedispivotalforitsvalidation anddissemination,andthushasamajorimpactontheexcellenceofEuropeanresearch.Europe should stimulate the development of a “continuum” of accessible and interlinked scientific informationfromrawdatatopublications,withinandacrossdifferentcommunitiesandcountries.' ‘Effectiveknowledgesharing[…]shouldconsistof:openandeasyaccesstothepublicknowledgebase; asimpleandharmonisedregimeforIntellectualPropertyRights,includingacost-efficientpatenting systemandsharedprinciplesforknowledgetransferandcooperationbetweenpublicresearchand industry;innovativecommunicationchannelstogivethepublicatlargeaccesstoscientificknowledge, themeanstodiscussresearchagendasandthecuriositytolearnmoreaboutscience.’
APPENDIX THREE: OPEN ACCESS – THE EUROPEAN CONTEXT  49 TheEuropeanCommissionitselfwasinvitedtomonitorgoodpracticesandsupport MemberStatepolicyco-ordination.Specifically,itwasinvitedtoimplement the measures announced in the Communication on ‘scientific information in the digital age: access, dissemination and preservation’ and in particular to: - experiment with Open Access to scientific publications resulting from projects funded by the EU Research Framework Programmes - support experiments and infrastructures with a cross-border added-value for access to and preservation of scientific information - contribute to improved policy co-ordination between Member States and to a constructive debate between stakeholders The Commission responded in part by including a session on Open Access and Preservation in the ERA conference ‘Working Together to Strengthen Science in Europe’conferenceinOctober200926.Thesessionresultedinasetofconclusionsand recommendationswhichidentifiedthreemainissues:theneedtoprovideresearch outputs(articles,books,datasetsetc)inanopenlyaccessibleandeasilyre-usableway; theneedtoprovideanintegratedsystemofsciencecommunication–anecosystemof infrastructures–thatensurestheoptimalfunctioningofthesystem;andtheweaklink betweenthebasicresearchsectorandinnovativeindustriesinERA. The CREST27 questionnaire (Comité de la recherche scientifique et technique; in  English: Scientific and Technical Research Committee) AquestionnairewassentouttoMemberStatesviatheScientificandTechnicalResearch Committee(CREST)inDecember2008andresponsescollectedinthefirstpartof2009. Twenty-fiveresponseswerereceivedfromCRESTmembers(EUMemberStates)andfive fromCRESTobservers.Aselectedfewofthesummarisedfindingsfromtheresponses indicatethegeneralstateofaffairsreported: • Withrespecttonational strategies on access and dissemination,theCommission concludesthatwhile‘the growing number of national initiatives in this field shows a clear and encouraging move towards the development of policies in these areas …there are very few of the nationally coordinated strategies or policies called for in the 2007 Council Conclusions’. • Oncoordination activities on access and dissemination,theCommissionfinds that‘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’.Moreover,despitesomeadvances,‘transparency regarding big deals [between publishers and libraries] is still lacking’.Thereisbetternewson repositoriesinEurope,though,withthefindingthat‘significant coordination initiatives are underway regarding interoperability of repositories’. 26 http://ec.europa.eu/research/conferences/2009/era2009/index_en.htm 27 renamedERAC(EuropeanResearchAreaCommittee)in2010
50 SHARING KNOWLEDGE: OPEN ACCESS AND PRESERVATION IN EUROPE Regarding long term preservation,‘specific attention to the preservation of scientific information needs to be further developed within most existing national policies and legislative frameworks’. Inadditiontothesemainsummarypoints,thefindingsshowedthatstrategiesarelargely attheleveloffundingbodies,universitiesorlibrariesratherthanattruenationallevel; thatpoliciesonsharingdataarelesswell-developedthanthoseonsharingarticles;and thatresearchersremainlargelyunawarethatOpenAccessisnotnecessarilyinconflict withthecopyrightpoliciesofscientificpublishers. European initiatives for the future Europe2020,thestrategyforgrowthandjobsinEurope,encompassessevenflagship initiatives.Amongstthem,heDigitalAgendaaimstomaximisethesocialandeconomic potentialofICT(InformationCommunicationTechnologies).TheInnovationUnion focusesoninnovationandhowbesttofosterit.Openaccessibilityofresearchfindings mustplayaroleinbothofthese.TheEuropeanUnionDigitalAgenda(EDA)aimstodeliver sustainableeconomicandsocialbenefitsfromadigitalsinglemarketbasedonultra fastbroadbandandinteroperableapplications.Itfocusesonsevenmainareas,ofwhich researchandinnovationisone.InadditionaCommunicationonScientificInformation willbeissuedbytheendof2011.
APPENDIX FOUR: QUESTIONNAIRE ON NATIONAL OPEN ACCESS AND PRESERVATION POLICIES  51 APPENDIX FOUR: Questionnaire on national open access  and preservation policies Part A - Respondent 1. General information Country: Organisation: Nameofrespondent: Contactdata: Inwhatcapacitydoyouworkonopenaccessand/orpreservationissues? Internetlinkstopagescontaininginformationonnationalpoliciesand/orotheruseful information: Part B - Strategies in your Member State 2. Policies in place for dissemination of and access to scientific information (including information on how these policies are financed) Pleasedescribe,orupdatethesituationasreportedin2009.
52 SHARING KNOWLEDGE: OPEN ACCESS AND PRESERVATION IN EUROPE Pleasealsoanswerthefollowing(youmayhavetobringclarificationsintheboxabove): 2�1 Generally speaking, the situation has (even slightly) improved since 2009: ¨Yes ¨No 2�2 Your country experienced problems in the implementation of the 2007 Council Conclusions (e�g� legal barriers): ¨Yes ¨No 2�3 Policies (or overall strategies) are in place: ¨Yes,atnationallevel ¨Yes,atregionallevel ¨No 2�4 Laws or legal provisions encouraging or mandating OA are in place: ¨Yes,atnationallevel ¨Yes,atregionallevel ¨No 2�5 Some funding bodies have OA policies: ¨Yes(pleaseprovidealist) ¨No 2�6 Some universities and research centres have OA policies: ¨Yes(pleaseprovidealist) ¨No 3. Policies and arrangements in place aiming to provide open access to peer-reviewed scientific journal articles resulting from public research funding Pleasedescribe,orupdatethesituationasreportedin2009. Pleasealsoanswerthefollowing(youmayhavetobringclarificationsintheboxabove): 3�1 There are special incentives in place to encourage researchers to provide OA to their publications: ¨Yes ¨No 3�2 There are some agreements regarding open access between funding bodies and publishers: ¨Yes ¨No 3�3 In the case of funding body policies on OA, research contracts or grant agreements include a specific reference to provide open access: ¨Yes(pleaseprovidephrasing) ¨No
APPENDIX ONE: WORKSHOP PARTICIPANTS  53 4. Policies and arrangements in place aiming to provide open access to other publicly funded research results (e.g. research data) Pleasedescribe,orupdatethesituationasreportedin2009. 5. Assess the situation regarding: 5�1 The way in which researchers exercise their copyright on scientific articles Pleasedescribe,orupdatethesituationasreportedin2009. 5�2 The level of investments in the dissemination of scientific information as compared to total investments in research Pleasedescribe,orupdatethesituationasreportedin2009. Pleasealsoanswerthefollowing(youmayhavetobringclarificationsintheboxabove): 5�2�1 The development (growth) of OA is measured: ¨Yes ¨No 5�2�2 The impact of OA is measured (examples: citation count, impact on RD budget, increased access by specific stakeholders, e�g� SMEs, uptake of research results leading to innovative findings)? ¨Yes ¨No 5�3 The use of financial mechanisms to improve access (e�g� refunding VAT for digital journal subscriptions to libraries) Pleasedescribe,orupdatethesituationasreportedin2009.
54 SHARING KNOWLEDGE: OPEN ACCESS AND PRESERVATION IN EUROPE 6. Policies and activities with regard to repositories (“open archives”) of scientific information (including repository sustainability and interoperability) Pleasedescribe,orupdatethesituationasreportedin2009. 7. Activities bringing together main stakeholders in the debate of scientific information (e.g. scientists, funding bodies librairies, scientific publishers) Pleasedescribe,orupdatethesituationasreportedin2009. Part C – Co-ordination between Member States 8. Assess the situation regarding the way your Member State has been involved in exploring possibilities for co-ordination e.g. 8�1 Defining common national funding bodies principles on open access Pleasedescribe,orupdatethesituationasreportedin2009. 8�2 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 Pleasedescribe,orupdatethesituationasreportedin2009.
APPENDIX ONE: WORKSHOP PARTICIPANTS  55 8�3 Working towards the interoperability of repositories of scientific information in Member States Pleasedescribe,orupdatethesituationasreportedin2009. 8�4 (other) Pleasedescribe,orupdatethesituationasreportedin2009. Pleasealsoanswerthefollowing(youmayhavetobringclarificationsintheboxabove): 8�4�1 Your country - or organisations in your country - works in collaboration with others on topics related to access, dissemination and preservation: ¨Yes ¨No Part D – Long term preservation of scientific information (publication and data) 9. Structured approach to the long term preservation of scientific information (whether incorporated 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) Pleasedescribe,orupdatethesituationasreportedin2009.
56 SHARING KNOWLEDGE: OPEN ACCESS AND PRESERVATION IN EUROPE 10. Specific characteristics of scientific information taken into account when setting up the legislative framework (including legal deposit) or practical set-up for digital preservation Pleasedescribe,orupdatethesituationasreportedin2009. Part E – Role of the European Commission/European Union 11. Role that you see for the European Commission/European Union in terms of policies Pleasedescribe,orupdatethesituationasreportedin2009. Part F – Additional comments 12. Any additional comment or suggestion that have not been covered by the questionnaire
European Commission Sharing knowledge: open access and preservation in Europe Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union 2011 – 50 pp. – 17.6 x 25.0 cm ISBN 978-92-79-20449-4 doi: 10.2777/63410 How to obtain EU publications Publications for sale: • via EU Bookshop (http://bookshop.europa.eu); • from your bookseller by quoting the title, publisher and/or ISBN number; • by contacting one of our sales agents directly. You can obtain their contact details on the Internet (http://bookshop.europa.eu) or by sending a fax to +352 2929-42758. Free publications: • via EU Bookshop (http://bookshop.europa.eu); • at the European Commission’s representations or delegations. You can obtain their contact details on the Internet (http://ec.europa.eu) or by sending a fax to +352 2929-42758.
KI-31-11-187-EN-N A workshop was held in Brussels, attended by around 20 invited national experts from EU Member States, with the aims of: getting an understanding of Member States’ implementation of the 2007 Council Conclusions on scientific information in the digital age, sharing experiences and know-how regarding successful implementations and best practices, and creating a common vision of what can be done next in terms of policy and action at Member State and at European levels. The report documents the proceedings, sets them in the context of developments so far on open access and preservation at an international level and makes a set of recommendations for future EC action. doi:10.2777/63410

More Related Content

PDF
Manual para Organizadores (2009)
bySHR Moisio
 
PDF
NETCHEM CPD: Video konferencijsko povezivanje
byMilan Milošević
 
PPTX
Ten Years of Open Access in the European Commission (2006-2015)
byJean-François Dechamp
 
PPTX
COASP Spichtinger
byDaniel Spichtinger
 
PPT
The importance of content-mining in the EC policy on open access
byJean-François Dechamp
 
PPT
OA in the ERA and Horizon 2020
byJean-François Dechamp
 
PPT
Open Access in Europe
byJean-François Dechamp
 
PPT
Open Access in the ERA and FP7
byJean-François Dechamp
 
Manual para Organizadores (2009)
bySHR Moisio
 
NETCHEM CPD: Video konferencijsko povezivanje
byMilan Milošević
 
Ten Years of Open Access in the European Commission (2006-2015)
byJean-François Dechamp
 
COASP Spichtinger
byDaniel Spichtinger
 
The importance of content-mining in the EC policy on open access
byJean-François Dechamp
 
OA in the ERA and Horizon 2020
byJean-François Dechamp
 
Open Access in Europe
byJean-François Dechamp
 
Open Access in the ERA and FP7
byJean-François Dechamp
 

Similar to Knowledge sharing: OA and preservation in Europe

PPT
201201 19 gold oa (dechamp)
byJean-François Dechamp
 
PPT
Open Science in the Digital Agenda
byCarl-Christian Buhr
 
PPT
Open Access in the EU (Februry 2013)
byJean-François Dechamp
 
PPT
Ifla presentation oa
byPaola Gargiulo
 
PPTX
Open Access to research through OpenAIRE+ and Zenodo
byNicolaie Constantinescu
 
PDF
Sharing knowledge: EC-funded projects on scientific information in the digita...
byJean-François Dechamp
 
PPT
Towards an open access policy in European Research
byKnowledge Exchange
 
PPTX
Open Science in a European Perspective
byPlatforma Otwartej Nauki
 
PPT
Open Science at the European Commission
byCarl-Christian Buhr
 
PPT
Celina Ramjoué: Open Access in the European Research Area (ERA)
by"Open Access - Open Data" conference, 13th/14th December, 2010
 
PPT
The European Commission and Open Access
byCarl-Christian Buhr
 
PPT
Towards a European Policy on Open Access
byJean-François Dechamp
 
PPT
Access to scientific information: the role of the EU
byCarl-Christian Buhr
 
DOCX
Pan-European Repository of Theses and Dissertations and Pan-European Plagiari...
bySlovak Centre of Scientific and Technical Information (SCSTI)
 
PPT
The Open Science Agenda in Europe: Policy convergence & diversity of approaches
byLIBER Europe
 
PPT
OpenAccess policies as tools for innovative research and educational challenges.
byUniversità di Padova
 
PPTX
2021_11 TSOUKALA_Latsis workshop.pptx
byVictoria Tsoukala
 
PPT
Science and Culture in the EU‘s Digital Agenda
byCarl-Christian Buhr
 
PPTX
Responsible Use of Research Metrics Module Launch
bydri_ireland
 
PDF
2008 Key Figures Report Comision 2008 2009 En
byMadrid Network
 
201201 19 gold oa (dechamp)
byJean-François Dechamp
 
Open Science in the Digital Agenda
byCarl-Christian Buhr
 
Open Access in the EU (Februry 2013)
byJean-François Dechamp
 
Ifla presentation oa
byPaola Gargiulo
 
Open Access to research through OpenAIRE+ and Zenodo
byNicolaie Constantinescu
 
Sharing knowledge: EC-funded projects on scientific information in the digita...
byJean-François Dechamp
 
Towards an open access policy in European Research
byKnowledge Exchange
 
Open Science in a European Perspective
byPlatforma Otwartej Nauki
 
Open Science at the European Commission
byCarl-Christian Buhr
 
Celina Ramjoué: Open Access in the European Research Area (ERA)
by"Open Access - Open Data" conference, 13th/14th December, 2010
 
The European Commission and Open Access
byCarl-Christian Buhr
 
Towards a European Policy on Open Access
byJean-François Dechamp
 
Access to scientific information: the role of the EU
byCarl-Christian Buhr
 
Pan-European Repository of Theses and Dissertations and Pan-European Plagiari...
bySlovak Centre of Scientific and Technical Information (SCSTI)
 
The Open Science Agenda in Europe: Policy convergence & diversity of approaches
byLIBER Europe
 
OpenAccess policies as tools for innovative research and educational challenges.
byUniversità di Padova
 
2021_11 TSOUKALA_Latsis workshop.pptx
byVictoria Tsoukala
 
Science and Culture in the EU‘s Digital Agenda
byCarl-Christian Buhr
 
Responsible Use of Research Metrics Module Launch
bydri_ireland
 
2008 Key Figures Report Comision 2008 2009 En
byMadrid Network
 

More from Jean-François Dechamp

PPTX
Open Data and Open Science in the European Commission
byJean-François Dechamp
 
PPTX
The 2018 European Commission Data Package
byJean-François Dechamp
 
PPTX
Tdm dechamp colin_open_minted
byJean-François Dechamp
 
PPTX
Research and Innovation in transformation: the transition to Open Science
byJean-François Dechamp
 
PPTX
Open access policies and requirements in Horizon 2020
byJean-François Dechamp
 
PPTX
Understanding what is for Research and Innovation in the EC proposal for EU C...
byJean-François Dechamp
 
PPTX
Open research data in Horizon 2020
byJean-François Dechamp
 
PPTX
Open Research Data in Horizon 2020
byJean-François Dechamp
 
PPTX
Open by default: the challenges of research data in Europe
byJean-François Dechamp
 
PPTX
Open Science and the European Commission
byJean-François Dechamp
 
PPTX
Green Light for Open Access: the European Commission
byJean-François Dechamp
 
PPTX
#Horizon2020 and #OpenAccess in 10 minutes!
byJean-François Dechamp
 
PPTX
A research-friendly copyright environment in the digital age: a European pers...
byJean-François Dechamp
 
PPTX
Open Access Presentation Update June 2015
byJean-François Dechamp
 
PPTX
Open Access In Biomedical Research
byJean-François Dechamp
 
PPTX
Text and Data Mining and DG RTD (European Commission)
byJean-François Dechamp
 
PPTX
Dechamp tromso nov2013
byJean-François Dechamp
 
PPTX
Updated presentation on OA in H2020 and ERA (JF Dechamp, UNESCO workshop, Ber...
byJean-François Dechamp
 
PDF
Survey on-open-access-in-fp7 en
byJean-François Dechamp
 
PPT
6 4 era-bled_knowledge_sharing_ff
byJean-François Dechamp
 
Open Data and Open Science in the European Commission
byJean-François Dechamp
 
The 2018 European Commission Data Package
byJean-François Dechamp
 
Tdm dechamp colin_open_minted
byJean-François Dechamp
 
Research and Innovation in transformation: the transition to Open Science
byJean-François Dechamp
 
Open access policies and requirements in Horizon 2020
byJean-François Dechamp
 
Understanding what is for Research and Innovation in the EC proposal for EU C...
byJean-François Dechamp
 
Open research data in Horizon 2020
byJean-François Dechamp
 
Open Research Data in Horizon 2020
byJean-François Dechamp
 
Open by default: the challenges of research data in Europe
byJean-François Dechamp
 
Open Science and the European Commission
byJean-François Dechamp
 
Green Light for Open Access: the European Commission
byJean-François Dechamp
 
#Horizon2020 and #OpenAccess in 10 minutes!
byJean-François Dechamp
 
A research-friendly copyright environment in the digital age: a European pers...
byJean-François Dechamp
 
Open Access Presentation Update June 2015
byJean-François Dechamp
 
Open Access In Biomedical Research
byJean-François Dechamp
 
Text and Data Mining and DG RTD (European Commission)
byJean-François Dechamp
 
Dechamp tromso nov2013
byJean-François Dechamp
 
Updated presentation on OA in H2020 and ERA (JF Dechamp, UNESCO workshop, Ber...
byJean-François Dechamp
 
Survey on-open-access-in-fp7 en
byJean-François Dechamp
 
6 4 era-bled_knowledge_sharing_ff
byJean-François Dechamp
 

Recently uploaded

PDF
Slit lamp parts 2/ppt/notes/download.pdf
byAnmol Singh
 
PDF
New Frontier-Cultivating Discipleship in an AI-Driven World.pdf
bySr Nancy Usselmann
 
PPTX
English Home Language & First Additional Language P2 Preparation.pptx
byMasingita Maswanganye
 
PPTX
psychoanalytic Theory.pptx, MSc. Nursing
byKomalJaiswal46
 
DOCX
PRESS STATEMENT - Response to Minority_ Press Ready.docx
bynservice241
 
PDF
Admin Slides for Oct'25 semester - PB1_MC5.pdf
byGreat Files
 
PPTX
Price Comparison of Product in Odoo 19 Purchase
byCeline George
 
PPTX
unit-2 PATIENT CARE UNIT. pptx
byAneetaSharma15
 
PDF
Who Owns the Narrative? Data, Disinformation, and the Missing Voice of Academia
byIsmail Fahmi
 
PDF
1.1 Historical background & development of Profession of Pharmacy.pdf
byMr. SAKHARE R. S.
 
PDF
Learning English by Project Based Learning: How to Make Foreign Friends
bysilvianalevana
 
PPTX
Savitribai Phule & Jyotiba Phule.pptx: Contribution towards Indian Educationa...
byShrutidhara2
 
PDF
The Ghana Chamber of Construction Industry (GhCCI) has appealed to the govern...
bynservice241
 
PPTX
Capital Budgeting - Risk Analysis Using Payback Period Method
bySundar B N
 
PPTX
THERAPEUTIC ENVIORNMENT.............pptx
byAneetaSharma15
 
PPTX
Google Cloud Study Jams 2025-26 Guide and Info Session
byEzaz11
 
PDF
50 ĐỀ LUYỆN THI IOE LỚP 6 THEO CHƯƠNG TRÌNH MỚI - NĂM HỌC 2024-2025 (CÓ LINK ...
byNguyen Thanh Tu Collection
 
PDF
The Children’s Support Fund, set up to support the welfare and education of c...
bynservice241
 
PPTX
Hudson Vitale "AI Essentials: From Tools to Strategies: A 2025 NISO Training ...
byNational Information Standards Organization (NISO)
 
PPTX
Exploring Entrepreneurial Qualities: A Curated Presentation for Grade 11 Busi...
bySamanthaNkoana
 
Slit lamp parts 2/ppt/notes/download.pdf
byAnmol Singh
 
New Frontier-Cultivating Discipleship in an AI-Driven World.pdf
bySr Nancy Usselmann
 
English Home Language & First Additional Language P2 Preparation.pptx
byMasingita Maswanganye
 
psychoanalytic Theory.pptx, MSc. Nursing
byKomalJaiswal46
 
PRESS STATEMENT - Response to Minority_ Press Ready.docx
bynservice241
 
Admin Slides for Oct'25 semester - PB1_MC5.pdf
byGreat Files
 
Price Comparison of Product in Odoo 19 Purchase
byCeline George
 
unit-2 PATIENT CARE UNIT. pptx
byAneetaSharma15
 
Who Owns the Narrative? Data, Disinformation, and the Missing Voice of Academia
byIsmail Fahmi
 
1.1 Historical background & development of Profession of Pharmacy.pdf
byMr. SAKHARE R. S.
 
Learning English by Project Based Learning: How to Make Foreign Friends
bysilvianalevana
 
Savitribai Phule & Jyotiba Phule.pptx: Contribution towards Indian Educationa...
byShrutidhara2
 
The Ghana Chamber of Construction Industry (GhCCI) has appealed to the govern...
bynservice241
 
Capital Budgeting - Risk Analysis Using Payback Period Method
bySundar B N
 
THERAPEUTIC ENVIORNMENT.............pptx
byAneetaSharma15
 
Google Cloud Study Jams 2025-26 Guide and Info Session
byEzaz11
 
50 ĐỀ LUYỆN THI IOE LỚP 6 THEO CHƯƠNG TRÌNH MỚI - NĂM HỌC 2024-2025 (CÓ LINK ...
byNguyen Thanh Tu Collection
 
The Children’s Support Fund, set up to support the welfare and education of c...
bynservice241
 
Hudson Vitale "AI Essentials: From Tools to Strategies: A 2025 NISO Training ...
byNational Information Standards Organization (NISO)
 
Exploring Entrepreneurial Qualities: A Curated Presentation for Grade 11 Busi...
bySamanthaNkoana
 

Knowledge sharing: OA and preservation in Europe

  • 1.
    Sharing knowledge: open access and preservation in Europe Conclusions of a strategic workshop - Brussels, 25-26 November 2010 ReseaRch & InnovatIon POLICY
  • 2.
    EUROPEAN COMMISSION Directorate-General forResearch and Innovation Directorate B – European Research Area Unit B.6 – Ethics and gender Contact: Francesco Fusaro Office SDME 03/17 B-1049 Brussels Tel. (32-2) 29-87458 Fax (32-2) 29-84694 E-mail: francesco.fusaro@ec.europa.eu RTD-OPEN-ACCESS@ec.europa.eu
  • 3.
    EUROPEAN COMMISSION SHARING KNOWLEDGE: OPEN ACCESS AND PRESERVATION IN EUROPE Conclusions of a strategic workshop Brussels, 25-26 November 2010 REPORT by Alma Swan (Rapporteur) Prepared by: Alma Swan, Enabling Open Scholarship 2 Denver Place Elm Grove Road Topsham Devon EX3 0EP United Kingdom +44 (0)1392 879702 a.swan@talk21.com www.openscholarship.org
  • 4.
    EUROPE DIRECT isa service to help you find answers to your questions about the European Union. Freephone number (*): 00 800 6 7 8 9 10 11 (*) Certain mobile telephone operators do not allow access to 00 800 numbers or these calls may be billed. LEGAL NOTICE Neither the European Commission nor any person acting on behalf of the Commission is responsible for the use which might be made of the following information. The views expressed in this publication are the sole responsibility of the author and do not necessarily refl ect the views of the European Commission. A great deal of additional information on the European Union is available on the Internet. It can be accessed through the Europa server (http://europa.eu). Cataloguing data can be found at the end of this publication. Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union, 2011 ISBN 978-92-79-20449-4 doi:10.2777/63410 © European Union, 2011 Reproduction is authorised provided the source is acknowledged.
  • 5.
    Contents Executive Summary �������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������5 SectionONE: The workshop ����������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 9 1.1 The background to the Workshop...................................................................10 1.2 Aims and objectives ........................................................................................10 1.3 Representation at the Workshop ....................................................................10 1.4 Format of the Workshop ................................................................................. 11 1.5 Why national experts attended the Workshop ............................................... 11 1.6 The overall vision: why Open Access and preservation are important..........12 1.7 Progress in the Member States .....................................................................13 1.7.1. Open Access-related experiences of Member States ........................13 1.7.1.1. At institutional level.......................................................................................................... 13 1.7.1.2. At national level................................................................................................................ 13 1.7.2. Problems or bottlenecks encountered ................................................14 1.7.2.1. Lack of awareness and understanding amongst researchers..................14 . 1.7.2.2. Lack of awareness and understanding amongst policymakers...............14 1.7.2.3. Lack of policy...................................................................................................................14 1.7.2.4. Copyright............................................................................................................................15 1.7.2.5. Financial cost of implementation............................................................................15 1.7.2.6. Quality control..................................................................................................................15 1.7.3. The key success factors in overcoming these bottlenecks and problems .......................................................................................15 1.7.3.1. Open Access policies .........................................................................15 1.7.3.2. Advocacy and cultural change work...................................................15 1.7.3.3. Infrastructural aspects of implementation ...........................................16 1.7.3.4. Funding ..............................................................................................16 1.7.3.5. Collaborative approaches ..................................................................16 1.7.4. The results, impacts and benefits .......................................................16 1.7.4.1. Policy development .............................................................................16 1.7.4.2. Culture change ...................................................................................16 1.7.4.3. Infrastructure ......................................................................................16 1.8 Suggestions for concrete actions ..................................................................17 1.8.1. Preservation of scientific information and experimental data ............17 1.8.2. How Open Access can make knowledge more connected and accessible ..................................................................18 1.8.3. Publisher relations and negotiations .................................................18 1.8.4. Measuring Open Access outputs and collecting evidence of the benefits of Open Access ...........................................19 1.8.5. National policies on Open Access ......................................................19 1.8.6. Making repositories user/researcher-friendly .....................................20 1.8.7. Open Access impact indicators as a replacement for existing research bibliometric systems..........................................20 1.8.8. Linking European and national levels .................................................21 1.9 Priorities for the recommended actions .........................................................21
  • 6.
    Section TWO: Discussionof the outcomes�����������������������������������������������������������23 2.1 Stakeholder engagement / involvement (advocacy).......................................25 2.2 Top-level engagement and support (policy development) ............................27 2.3 Collaborations and partnerships (coordination).............................................28 2.4 Implementation and manifestations (infrastructure) ......................................29 Section THREE: Recommendations���������������������������������������������������������35 3.1 Advocacy .........................................................................................................36 3.2 Policy ...............................................................................................................36 3.3 Rights ..............................................................................................................36 3.4 Infrastructure ...................................................................................................37 3.5 Business models .............................................................................................37 References���������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������38 Appendices �������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 41 APPENDIX ONE: Workshop participants �������������������������������������������������42 APPENDIX TWO: The format of the Workshop ��������������������������������������44 APPENDIX THREE: Open access – The European context �������������������45 APPENDIX FOUR: Questionnaire on national open access and preservation policies �������������������������������������������������������������������������� 51
  • 7.
  • 8.
    6 SHARING KNOWLEDGE: OPENACCESS AND PRESERVATION IN EUROPE AWorkshopwasheldinBrusselson25-26November2010,attendedbyaround20invited nationalexpertsfromEUMemberStates,withtheaimsof:gettinganunderstanding of Member States’ implementation of the 2007 Council Conclusions on scientific informationinthedigitalage;sharingexperiencesandknow-howregardingsuccessful implementationsandbestpractices;andcreatingacommonvisionofwhatcanbedone nextintermsofpolicyandactionatMemberStateandatEuropeanlevels. Thisreportdocumentstheproceedings,setstheminthecontextofdevelopments sofaronOpenAccessandpreservationataninternationallevelandmakesasetof recommendationsforfutureECaction. OneissueaddressedwaswhyOpenAccessandpreservationareimportant.Theexperts listedbothhigh-level,principle-basedreasonsandmorepragmaticones.Theformer categoryincludedthemoralargumentthattheresultsofpublicly-fundedresearchshould bepubliclyavailable,thatOpenAccessenablesresearchfindingstobesharedwiththe widerpublic,helpingtocreateaknowledgesocietyacrossEuropecomposedofbetter- informedcitizens,andthatOpenAccessenhancesknowledgetransfertosectorsthatcan directlyusethatknowledgetoproducebettergoodsandservices.Themorepractice- focusedreasonswerethatOpenAccessimprovesresearchefficiency,andenablesre-use ofresearchoutputs,providesthebasisforbetterresearchmonitoringandevaluation. PreservationofresearchoutputsensuresthattheculturalheritageofEuropeisprotected andcuratedforfuturegenerationsandthatscientificoutputsarekeptinformatsthat ensuretheyarepermanentlyusableandaccessible. ParticipantsreportedonprogressonOpenAccessandpreservationintheindividual MemberStates.AtinstitutionalleveltherehavebeenprojectsonOpenAccessinindividual universities, progress on the development of CRIS (Current Research Information Systems),andsomeprogressonpolicydiscussion.AtnationallevelOpenAccesshas beenincorporatedintonationalstrategyforscienceandresearchinsomecountries.At infrastructurallevel,nationalarchivesforOpenAccesscontent–ornationalharvesting systems,presentingOpenAccessmaterialthroughnationalportals–havebeensetupin someMemberStates. Bottleneckshaveprimarilybeen:lackofawarenessandunderstandingofOpenAccess amongstresearchersandpolicymakers;limitedpolicydevelopment;issuesaround copyright(authorsoftenbelievethatmakingtheirworkOpenAccessinfringescopyright andinsomeMemberStatescopyrightlawimpedesOpenAccess);misconceptionsamong authorsaboutqualitycontrol,whichtheybelieveerroneouslytobeabsentfortheOpen Accessliterature;andthefinancialcostofimplementationofOpenAccess. Keysuccessfactorsinovercomingthesebottleneckshavebeen:goodpolicydevelopment atinstitutionalandnationallevel;well-designedadvocacyandculture-changeworkat authorandpolicymakerlevels;infrastructuraldevelopments;adequatefundingfor infrastructuralandadvocacywork;andthedevelopmentofeffectivecollaborative approachesinvolvingvariousstakeholderswhosharethemission. The results and impacts of overcoming the bottlenecks and barriers are: policy implementationatinstitutionalandnationallevel;culturechangeintermsofachieving
  • 9.
    EXECUTIVE SUMMARY  7 good self-archiving levels (‘Green’ Open Access) and raising awareness; and the developmentofinfrastructuresthatsupportOpenAccessandpreservation,suchas nationalharvestingsystemsandnationalpreservationarrangements. Participantsagreedalistofprioritiesforconcreteactionsthatcanbetakenasaresultof theWorkshop.Thesewere: • Stakeholderengagement/involvement(advocacy).Suggestedactionpointsin thisareawere:creationofnewmetricsforOpenAccesscontent;developmentof indicatorstodemonstratethebenefitsofOpenAccess;furtherawareness-raising activities;developmentofincentivesforauthorsandpublisherstoincreasethe amountofOpenAccesscontent;encouragingthesharingofgoodpractices • Top-levelengagementandsupport(policydevelopment).Suggestedactionpoints underthisheadingwere:makingthe‘Green’routetoOpenAccess(through repositories)mandatory; developmentofpoliciesatgovernment,funder,and institutionallevelacrossEurope;explorationofcopyrightlawsinEUstateswitha viewtorecommendingmodificationorcreatinganewlawpertainingtoacademic researchoutputs • Collaborationsandpartnerships.Suggestedactionpointsforthisareawere: coordinationactivitiestosupportadvocacyandothersupportingactionsforOpen Access;identifyexistinginitiativesandbuilduponthem;encouragethesharingof goodpractices • Implementationandmanifestations(infrastructures).Suggestedactionpointsfor thistopicwere:developmentofstandardsforallaspectsofOpenAccess;funding forinfrastructuraldevelopments;investmentine-researchinfrastructuresin Europe,especiallythosethatsupportthedevelopmentoftheOpenDataagenda; investmoreeffortindevelopmentoftechnologiesandenablersofOpenData; developtechnicalinfrastructuretosupportpreservationofresearchoutputs;fund workondataandmetadatacurationforthelong-term;developmentoftoolsto supportdepositandcurationofcontentinOpenAccesscollections;investigation ofnewbusinessmodelsapplicabletoOpenAccess Theseoutcomesarediscussed(bytheRapporteur)inthisreportinthelightofcontextual backgroundinformationanddevelopments.Aseriesofrecommendationsarethenmade asfollows: Recommendation 1: BuildonwhatwasachievedbytheWorkshoptostrengthenthe nascentnetworkandenableandencouragefurtherinteractionsandcollaborations (coordination) Recommendation 2: Encourageandsupportinitiativesthataimtodevelopadvocacy programmesacrosstheUnion Recommendation 3:Fundthedevelopmentofindicatorsthatbetterassessscientific progressandmeasurethebenefittostakeholdercommunitiesacrosssociety Recommendation 4: EnablecoordinationofpolicyatEuropeanlevel
  • 10.
    8 SHARING KNOWLEDGE: OPENACCESS AND PRESERVATION IN EUROPE Recommendation 5:Encourageandsupportinitiativesthataimtoincreaseawarenessand understandingoftheissuesaroundOpenAccessandpreservationatpolicymakerlevels Recommendation 6:Informandencourageauthorsandinstitutions(andfunderswhere appropriate)toretaintherightsthatarenecessarytoprovideOpenAccessandenable adequatepreservationofscientificoutputs Recommendation 7:Enableasharedunderstandingacrossallstakeholders(researchers, institutions,funders,librariesandpublishers)ofthelegalterminologyandconcepts involved Recommendation 8: Build upon the investment in OpenAIRE by further enabling coordinateddevelopmentsthatjoinupemerginginfrastructurestomaximumeffect Recommendation 9:ProvideEuropean-levelguidanceandleadershiptoMSonthe principleofthelong-termnecessityandbenefitofaccesstoandpreservationofscientific information Recommendation 10:Examinethelong-termprospectsfortheinfrastructuralbasis forOpenAccesssofardevelopedinEurope.Assessthisinthecontextofcreatinga coordinated,viable,sustainablesystemthatwillenablethecreationoftheInnovation Unionoverthenext15years
  • 11.
  • 12.
    10 SHARING KNOWLEDGE: OPENACCESS AND PRESERVATION IN EUROPE 1.1  The background to the Workshop TheWorkshopwasconvenedtoexplorethestateofplayandprogresswithinMember States(MS)withrespecttoOpenAccessto,andpreservationof,scientificresearch outputs.BothhavebeenontheCommission’sagendaforsomeyears,beginningwiththe studyintoscientificpublishingcarriedoutonbehalfoftheCommissionandpublishedin 2006(seebelowformoredetail). Thetwothings–OpenAccessandpreservation–areseparatebutrelatedissues.Open Accessisaboutfree-of-chargeaccessibilityofoutputs(researchtextsanddata)without delayassoonastheyarereadyforpublication:preservationconcernsensuringthelong- termstorage,careandcontinuingfreeaccessibilityoftheseoutputs.Thepresentpolicy situationonthesetwothings,bothatEuropeanandatMemberStatelevel,hasarisenout ofanumberofinitiativesandsteps,somecoordinatedandsomenot,sincethebeginning ofthemillennium.ThiscontextislaidoutmorefullyinAppendix1. 1.2  Aims and objectives Thehigh-levelaimsoftheWorkshopwere: • togetanunderstandingofMemberStates’implementationofthe2007Council Conclusionsonscientificinformationinthedigitalage • toshareexperiencesandknow-howregardingsuccessfulimplementationsand bestpractices • tocreateacommonvisionofwhatcanbedonenextintermsofpolicyandaction atMemberStateandatEuropeanlevels • tosustainMemberStateinvolvementandcommitment • toidentifyareasinwhichEuropean-level(EC-level)actionmakessenseandwould bewelcome. TheCommissionwouldliketodevelopconcrete policy recommendationsonhowtomove forwardatMemberStateandEuropeanlevelonaccessandpreservationissuesandthe Workshopwasconvenedtoinformthedevelopmentofthatpolicy. 1.3  Representation at the Workshop Representationwasasbelow. i)ExpertsfromMemberStates: Austria,Belgium,CzechRepublic,Denmark,Estonia,France,Germany,Greece,Iceland, Ireland,Italy,Latvia,Lithuania,Netherlands,Poland,Portugal,Slovakia,Slovenia,Spain, Sweden,UnitedKingdom ii)TheEuropeanCommission • Jean-MichelBaer • Jean-FrançoisDechamp
  • 13.
    SECTION ONE: THEWORKSHOP  11 • FrancescoFusaro • GillesLaroche • MatthieuKleinschmager • Alexis-MichelMugabushaka • TheodorePapazoglou • JuanPelegrin • CarlosMoraisPires • CelinaRamjoué • LorenzaSaracco • JarkkoSiren • EcaterinaStamate iii)Rapporteur:Alma Swan,EnablingOpenScholarshipandKeyPerspectivesLtd 1.4  Format of the Workshop TheWorkshopemployedavarietyoftechniquestoensuredelegateparticipation.These fellunderanoverallapproachcalledtheArt of Hosting and Convening Meaningful Conversations(www.artofhosting.org).Thespecifictechniquesemployedatthisevent aredescribedinAppendix2. 1.5  Why national experts attended the Workshop TherewerefivemainreasonsgivenbythenationalexpertsforattendingtheWorkshop. Theywere: • TolearnaboutdevelopingpoliciesonOpenAccessandPreservation,andhowto implementthem • ToshareexperiencesoftryingtopromoteOpenAccess,includingonpolicy developmentandimplementation • ToexplorethepossibilityofcollaboratingwithotherstoachieveOpenAccess • ToobtaininformationthatwillhelptoguideOpenAccessdevelopmentintheir homestate • ToencourageandhelpguideactionatEuropeanlevel Thereweresomeother,lesscommonreasonsgiven,suchasbeinginterestedinOpen Data, exploring business models for Open Access, and developing infrastructures forpreservation.Ingeneral,though,participantshadcometolearnfromandshare experiencesandwiththehopethattheeventmighthelpcatalysepartnershipand networkingactivitiesandmovedevelopmentsalongatEuropeanlevel.
  • 14.
    12 SHARING KNOWLEDGE: OPENACCESS AND PRESERVATION IN EUROPE 1.6    he overall vision: why Open Access and preservation   T are important  ThroughWorldCaféconversationsthenationalexpertsgavetheirpersonalviewsasto whyOpenAccessandPreservationofscientificinformationareimportant.Thereasons werecollectedattheendofthesessionandrelatedreasonsweregroupedtogether. Overall,theyfellintotwocategories. First,therewerethehigh-level,principle-basedreasons: • Themoralargument,whichisthattheresultsofpublicly-fundedresearchshould bepubliclyavailable • OpenAccessenablesresearchfindingstobesharedwiththewiderpublic,helping tocreateaknowledgesocietyacrossEuropecomposedofbetter-informedcitizens • OpenAccessenhancesknowledgetransfertosectorsthatcandirectlyusethat knowledgetoproducebettergoodsandservices.Manyconstituenciesoutsidethe researchcommunityitselfcanmakeuseofresearchresults.Theseincludesmall andmedium-sizedcompaniesthatdonothaveaccesstotheresearchthrough companylibraries,organisationsofprofessional(legalpractices,familydoctor practices,etc),theeducationsectorandsoforth Secondthereweremoreprosaic,practice-focusedreasons: • OpenAccessimprovesresearchefficiencybyobviatingtheneedforresearchersto spendtimeseekingwaysofaccessinginformation,gettingpermissiontousethat information,findingoutwhatpermissionsforre-useexistandsoon.Theyalso finditeasiertoavoidduplicationofpreviousworkifitissimpletofindoutwhat previousworkhasbeendone,andeasiertoavoidblindalleysifpreviousworkhas shownthemtoexist.Allofthisismadepossiblebyhavingfreeandeasyaccess tothewholeliteratureratherthantojustthesubsetofitavailablethroughthe subscriptionspurchasedbyanyoneuniversitylibrary • Re-useofresearchoutputsisimprovedbyOpenAccess(whosedefinitionincludes there-useofresearchoutputswithoutrestrictionsimposedbyconventional copyrightpractice).OpenAccessarticlescanbeharvestedbymachinesintonew, usefulcollections,canbeminedformeaningorfactsbytext-miningcomputer technologieswhichthencreatenewknowledge,andcanbeusedforteachingand alliedpurposeswhichnormallyfallfoulofcopyrightrestrictions • OpenAccessenablesbetterresearchmonitoringandevaluation.Insteadofa systemwhereonlyaproportionofjournalsaretrackedforcitationstothepapers theypublish,andaresearcher’sworthismeasuredbythe‘quality’ofthejournalin whichtheypublish,OpenAccessenablescitationsandothermeasuresofimpact fromacrossthewholeresearchliteraturetobetrackedtotheindividualarticleor researcherratherthanthejournal.Eachinstitution’sOpenAccessrepository(digital collectionofresearchoutputs)alsoenablesresearchmanagersatthatinstitution toassessandstudyresearchprogresslocallyandcomparethattocompetitor institutions • ThedevelopmentoftechnologiestolinkOpenAccessrepositoriesandCurrent ResearchInformationSystems(CRIS)inresearchinstitutionsbuildsuponthe
  • 15.
    SECTION ONE: THEWORKSHOP  13 advantagesmentionedinthepreviouspoint.Untilnow,institutionalmanagers havenotbeenabletosayhowmanypapershavebeenpublishedfromtheir institution,wheretheyhavebeenpublished,whoauthoredthem,whatprojects thoseauthorsworkedon,whatresearchgrantsthoseprojectshavebenefitedfrom, whatequipmenthasbeenpurchasedfromthosegrants,andsoon.Nowallthis informationcanbecollected,collatedandlinkedupinmeaningfulwaystoproduce acompletemanagementinformationsystemforanyresearch-basedinstitution • PreservationofresearchoutputsensuresthattheculturalheritageofEuropeis protectedandcuratedforfuturegenerations;thatscientificoutputsarekeptin formatsthatensuretheyarepermanentlyusableandaccessible 1.7  Progress in the Member States  National experts reported on developments in Member States since the Council Conclusionswereissuedlatein2007.TheydidthisbyworkinginWorldCaféformat. Onepersondescribedtheirexperienceswhiletheothersatthetablelistened,helpedthe speakertobringoutthekeyissuesofthatexperience,andrecordedthemonpaper.Each delegateinturndescribedtheirexperiencesinthisway.Thekeyissueswererecorded finallyonsmallpiecesofpaperandthenationalexpertsarrangedtheseintogroupsof relatedissuesunderthefourmainheadingquestions,whichwere: • WhataretheOpenAccess-relatedexperiencesofyourMemberState? • Whatproblemsorbottleneckswereencountered? • Whatwerethekeysuccessfactorsinovercomingthesebottlenecksandproblems? • Whatweretheresults,impactsandbenefits? 1.7.1. Open Access-related experiences of Member States SomeMShavemadeconsiderableprogressonOpenAccess,whileothersareslowerto initiatedevelopments.Thedevelopmentsthatwerereportedwere: 1.7.1.1.  At  institutional  level:  there have been projects instigated on Open Access in individual universities, progress on the development of CRIS (Current Research Information Systems; see section 2.4, penultimate bullet point), and some progress on policydiscussion. 1.7.1.2.  At national level: theargumentforOpenAccesshassuccessfullybeentakento governmentlevelinsomeMSandinsomecaseshavebeenincorporatedintonational strategyforscienceandresearch.OpenDatapolicyhasalsobeenimplementedinone case. At infrastructural level, national archives for Open Access content have been set up (for example, the national Open Access repository for theses in Greece), a national CRIShascollected10%ofpublicationsinDenmark,andanationalOpenDatarepository and a national portal for Open Access journals has been established. The most far- reaching development has occurred in Portugal, with the establishment of the RCAAP (RepositórioCientíficodeAcessoAbertodePortugal)whichharvestsOpenAccesscontent fromPortugueseuniversityrepositoriesandpresentsthemthroughanationalinterface. This is paralleled at disciplinary level by UKPMC (UK PubMed Central) which collects
  • 16.
    14 SHARING KNOWLEDGE: OPENACCESS AND PRESERVATION IN EUROPE biomedicalresearchoutputsfromUKinstitutionsandpresentsthemthroughanOpen Accessportal. 1.7.2. Problems or bottlenecks encountered TwomainbottlenecksthatwerementionedbymanyMSrepresentatives–lackof awarenessaboutOpenAccessonthepartofresearchersandpolicymakers,andlackof policy.LackoffinancialsupportwasalsoraisedasabarriertoachievingOpenAccessand properprovisionforpreservationofresearchfindings.Someotherissueswerealsoraised andallarereportedbelow. 1.7.2.1.  Lack  of  awareness  and  understanding  amongst  researchers:  This is not confined to European researchers. Surveys have repeatedly shown that researchers are still not properly aware of the concept and that, even if they have some knowledge of OpenAccess,thereisusuallysomelackofunderstandingoftheissues.Inparticular,the issuesofqualitycontrol,theroleofrepositoriesandthematterofcopyrightareespecially prominentasfactorsaboutwhichresearchersareconfusedanduninformed(seebelow for more on these bottlenecks). Some researchers even appear to be resistant to the ideaofopennessitself,thoughthisresistanceismoreusuallyapplicabletoresearchdata thantoresearchpublications.TheresultisdemonstrableresistancetotheideaofOpen Access,misunderstandingsandbaselessprejudiceagainstitwithinpartsoftheresearch community. 1.7.2.2.  Lack of awareness and understanding amongst policymakers: Policymakers are, with notable exceptions, even more unaware than researchers about Open Access and can often be uninformed about the issues around scientific communication in general.Lackofawarenessandunderstandingisattherootofthegenerallackofpolicy developmentatMSlevel(andatinstitutionallevel).Nationalexpertsreporteddifficulty ingettinginterestandattentionfrompolicymakersonOpenAccessandrelatedissues. 1.7.2.3.  Lack  of  policy:  Some MS do have high-level policies on Open Access and preservation.TheNetherlands,forexample,hasasysteminplacenationallyforpreserving researchoutputsinthecustodianshipoftheRoyalLibrary(KB).MostMSdonothavesucha system,thoughinsomecasesitisindevelopment(forexample,theBritishLibraryisworking onanambitiousplanforpreservationofthenation’sscientificandculturalheritage). Thereisapolicythatcovers20%ofFrameworkProgramme7(FP7)-fundedresearch outputsandsomeMShavepoliciesinplaceatnationalresearchfunderlevel(some examplesare:theAustrianResearchCouncil,theSwedishResearchCouncil,theseven UKResearchCouncils),andthereisanOpenAccesspolicyfromtheEuropeanResearch Council.Inthemain,though,thereislittleinthewayofpolicydevelopmentatMSlevel, andnotmuchmoreatinstitutionallevel1.ThisisahindrancetotheadvanceofOpen Accessbecausepoliciesservenotonlytosupportanimplementationprogramme,butalso toinformresearchersaboutOpenAccess.Theyareexcellentadvocacytools. 1 S eelistofextantpoliciesatROARMAP(RegistryofOpenAccessRepositoryMaterialArchivingPolicies) http://www.eprints.org/openaccess/policysignup/
  • 17.
    SECTION ONE: THEWORKSHOP  15 1.7.2.4.  Copyright:  Researchers who are not properly informed about Open Access believe (erroneously) they will be infringing copyright if they self-archive their work in repositories and do not believe that Open Access is compatible at all with scientific publishing.NationalexpertsfromsomeMS(forexample,Germany)reportedthattheir ownnationalcopyrightlawsdonotpermitOpenAccessbyself-archiving. 1.7.2.5.  Financial cost of implementation: Therewasagreementamongstanumberof participantsreportedthatthecostofimplementingOpenAccessandgoodpreservation practicesintheirMSwasinhibitingtheadvanceofthesethings. 1.7.2.6.  Quality control: Manyresearchers–andsomepolicymakers–whoarenotproperly informedbelievethatOpenAccessisaboutpublishingmaterialwithoutpeerreview.Thisis anerroneousbelief(asOpenAccessjournalsimplementpeerreviewasdotheirsubscription counterparts,andrepositoriescollecttheauthor’sfinalversionofarticles,afterpeer-review) butitremainsquiteprevalent.AuthorsthereforefrequentlyandincorrectlybelievethatOpen Accesscontentequateswithlowerstatusthancontentpublishedinthe‘traditional’way. 1.7.3. The key success factors in overcoming these bottlenecks and problems Byfarthemost-mentionedkeysuccessfactorwasgettingapolicyonOpenAccessinplace. Itforceschangeinawaythatadvocacyandexampledonot.Yetadvocacyhasitsplace,and engagementofkeystakeholdersthroughadvocacyhasprovedtobeaveryeffectiveroute toresearcherinvolvementandpolicymakingprogress,especiallywheretheexistingculture andpracticescanbeusedtosupportOpenAccess.Othersuccessfactorsreportedwere infrastructuraldevelopments,securingappropriatefundingandcollaborativeapproaches. 1.7.3.1.  Open Access policies ExpertsfromMSwherenational-levelorinstitutional-levelpolicieshavebeenadopted reportedthattheyaresuccessfulinincreasingtheamountofmaterialopenlyavailableand inraisingawarenessofOpenAccessamongstauthors.Policiesusuallyexplainthecasefor OpenAccessandaresupportedbyclearguidancetoresearchersonhowtoprovideOpen Accesstotheirwork. 1.7.3.2.  Advocacy and cultural change work Expertsreportedthatinvolvingkeystakeholders(authors,institutionalmanagers,national researchpolicymakers)hasbeencriticallyimportantinadvancingOpenAccess.Successful advocacyhasincludededucationandinformationcampaigns,usingbibliometricindicators tomakethecaseforOpenAccess,promotingthevisibilityandusabilityofOpenAccess materialandexplainingthereach(andsubsequentimpact)itcanhaveoutsideofthe ‘normal’researchcommunityaudience.
  • 18.
    16 SHARING KNOWLEDGE: OPENACCESS AND PRESERVATION IN EUROPE 1.7.3.3.  Infrastructural aspects of implementation Well-designedinfrastructuraldevelopmentscanenhanceOpenAccess.Somenational expertsreportedthatintegratingrepositoriesonlocalandnationalbaseshadhelped OpenAccessintheirMS.Portugalisagoodexampleofthis,withthebuildingofanational harvestertriggeringactivityinabottom-upfashionatinstitutionalrepositorylevel. 1.7.3.4.  Funding FundingearmarkedforOpenAccessandpreservationdevelopmentscanbeimportant. Bothinfrastructureandadvocacyrequiresomefinancialsupport. 1.7.3.5.  Collaborative approaches ThepartnershipcreatedbytheFP7projectOpenAIREwasmentionedasacontributory factorinenhancingOpenAccessinonedelegate’scase. 1.7.4. The results, impacts and benefits Theresults,impactsandbenefitsreportedbynationalexpertsfellintofourmaincategories –policydevelopment,culturechange,establishmentofinfrastructureandtheamassingof acorpusofOpenAccesscontent.Itwasnotable,however,thatfarfewernationalexperts reportedanythinginthissessionthanforthebottlenecksandkeysuccessfactors. 1.7.4.1.  Policy development TwonationalexpertsreportednationalpoliciesonOpenAccessforthesesandone reportedthesuccessfulcoordinationofOpenAccesspolicieswithintheircountry. 1.7.4.2.  Culture change Examplesofculturechangegivenwere:instigatinganOpenAccessawarenesscourse, determiningthroughastudythat55%ofjournalarticlespublishedbyDanishresearchers arepublishedin‘Green’journals(thatis,thepublisherallowsthemtobearchivedinOpen Accessrepositories);andachievingsomesuccessinchangingthebehaviourandattitudes ofresearcherstowardsOpenAccess. 1.7.4.3.  Infrastructure Infrastructuredevelopmentswereaboutestablishingnationalrepositorysystems, includingthenationalharvestingrepositoriesinIrelandandPortugal.
  • 19.
    SECTION ONE: THEWORKSHOP  17 1.8  Suggestions for concrete actions  TheseconddayoftheWorkshopbeganwithaProActionCafésessiontoreflectupon whathadhappenedthusfarandforindividualstoidentifyparticulartopicsthatthey consideredworthyofexploringtopromoteOpenAccessandpreservationinEurope.Eight topicswereoffered: • Preservationofscientificinformationandexperimentaldata • HowOpenAccesscanmakeknowledgemoreconnectedandaccessible • Publisherrelationsandnegotiations • MeasuringOpenAccessoutputsandcreatingevidenceofthebenefitsofOpen Access • NationalpoliciesonOpenAccess • Makingrepositoriesuser/researcher-friendly • Openaccessimpactindicatorsasareplacementforexistingresearchbibliometric systems • LinkingEuropeanandnationallevels ParticipantsusedtheWorldCaféformattodiscussthesetopics.Topicleadersremained atatableandthreeotherpeoplejoinedthediscussionforaperiod,movingontoother tablesattheendofeachperiod.Thetopicleadermadenotesofthekeyinsightsarising inthesediscussionsandproducedashortoverviewdetailingthemainpointsthatarose, whichtheypresentedtothewholegroup.Asummaryofthesemainpointsforeach topicfollows: 1.8.1. Preservation of scientific information and experimental data Technicalbottlenecksshouldnotbeallowedtohinderpreservationandpreservation solutionsshouldbebasedonopensourcesoftware • Optimalpreservationsolutionswillvaryaccordingtoresearchdiscipline • ThereneedstobeaEuropeandimension(EuropeanStorageInfrastructure)tolink nationalrepositoryinfrastructures • AFederationofPreservationshouldbeestablishedonaEuropeanscaletoenable nationalarchivestoworktogetherincommonaim,withmirrorsitesestablishedto ensuresafecustodyofdata Box 1: Next steps on preservation of scientific information and experimental data include: • S ettingupworkingpartieswithresearchersandusersofexperimentaldata indifferentdisciplinestodefinestandards • E xplorationoftheissuesinvolvedinmigrationofdataovertimefromone formattoanother • D evelopmentofguidelinesonwhatdatatopreserves,forhowlong,where andhow
  • 20.
    18 SHARING KNOWLEDGE: OPENACCESS AND PRESERVATION IN EUROPE 1.8.2. How Open Access can make knowledge more connected and accessible Therearebothculturalandscientific/technicalissuesatstakehere.Culturalaspects includelegalpracticeandincentivesforbothauthorsandpublisherstochangetheirown practicesandnormstoembraceOpenAccess.Scientific/technicalissuesincludemetadata standards,technologiesforextractionandautomaticcreationofmetadata,bettersearch capabilities(using,forexample,naturallanguagequerying),andtheestablishmentof infrastructureforrepresentingandpreservinglargevolumesofresearchdata. Box 2: Next steps on how Open Access can make knowledge more connected and accessible: • DevelopincentivesforresearcherstomaketheirworkOpenAccess • Investigatestandardsforgood,cleanmetadata(includinglinkingtoother datasets) • Clarifylegalissuesrelatedtolinking,sharingandre-usingOpenAccess content • Educateallconstituenciesaboutthenewparadigmsofresearch communication 1.8.3. Publisher relations and negotiations Thereshouldbetransparencyoverpricenegotiationswithpublishers,withinformation postedontheWeb.Thediscussionconcludedthatsomepublishersareinnovativeand forward-looking,andthesecouldbenurturedandencouragedandpromotedwherever possible.Alternative,viableandsustainablepublishingbusinessmodelsthatallowOpen Accesscanbedeveloped,andtheseshouldbeexplored,especiallywithlearnedsocieties. TherewasasuggestionforacommonEuropeanapproachinnegotiatingwithpublishers. Box 3: Next steps on publisher relations and negotiations include: • Creatingawebsitedocumentingthestateofplayforeachpublisherwith respecttoOpenAccess.Thisneedstobekeptuptodate • Astudyshouldcollectinformationonnewbusinessmodelsforpublishers • TheCommissionshouldorganiseaworkshoponrelationsanddealingswith publishers • T hereshouldbenationalandEuropean-levelprojectsinassociationwith innovativepublishersinordertopromotethesepublishersandtheirwork • W orkshouldbeginwithlearnedsocietypublishers • D GCompetitionshouldexaminewhethertheacademicpublishingindustry isactuallyamonopolysituation • A lobbyisneededtopromoteOpenAccess • A commonEuropeanapproachisneededinnegotiationswithpublishers, ratherthanthefragmentedinstitutionalornationalapproachesofthepresent
  • 21.
    SECTION ONE: THEWORKSHOP  19 1.8.4. Measuring Open Access outputs and collecting evidence of the benefits of Open Access Thetraditionalacademicmeasureofimpacthasbeenthecitationofapieceofwork,but therearemanyusersofresearchthatdon’tciteit,suchasprofessionals,practitioners andbusinessusers.New,additionalmetricsareneededtomeasureandreflectthebigger worthandutilityofresearch.Measuresthatcouldbeimportantare: For researchers:mediacoverageandusagemetrics For institutions:economicefficienciesofOpenAccess,usagemetrics,mediacoverage, enhancementofinterdisciplinaryresearchbyOpenAccess For governments and national research funders: usage metrics, media coverage, compliancewithpolicies,enhancementofinterdisciplinaryresearchbyOpenAccess,cost percitation,costperuse For society at large:publicsurveys,citizeneducation,qualityofmediareporting Box 4: Next steps on Measuring Open Access outputs and creating evidence of the benefits of Open Access include: • E xplorationofthescopeofindicatorsthatcouldbeusefultodifferent constituencies • S copingstudytoprovideanoutlineofwhatworkisnecessarytodevelop them 1.8.5. National policies on Open Access Therewasnoagreeddecisionaboutwhethernationalpoliciesareneededornot.Some peoplearguedthatabottom-upapproachismosteffective,butothersholdthata nationalpolicyisessentialsothatatop-downinfluencehelpsthebottom-upinitiatives. Theadvantageofanationalapproachisthatnationalauthoritiesareusuallyneededfor involvementwithlegalissues,copyrightandinnegotiationswithpublishers.Withrespect topreservation,anational-levelapproachishighlydesirabletopreserveculturalheritage andtoputinplacepropersystemsforpreservingscientificresearchmaterialinthelong term. Box 5: Next steps on National policies on Open Access include: • C onsiderationofwhethertheCommissionshouldissueguidelineson developmentofnationalpolicies:thesewouldcoverbestpractice,practical issues,samplecontracts
  • 22.
    20 SHARING KNOWLEDGE: OPENACCESS AND PRESERVATION IN EUROPE 1.8.6. Making repositories user/researcher-friendly Atissueisthefactthatmostrepositoriesarehalf-emptyandoftenhavepoorquality metadata.NationalCRISsarebeingbuiltwithOAIcompliance,whichshouldaddvalueto thesesystems. Box 6: Next steps on making repositories user/researcher-friendly include: • CreateamoreefficientbusinessmodelforlinkingrepositoriesandCRISs Europe-wide • Setstandardsonplatformsandinteroperability,withtheneedfor researcherstodeposittheirarticlesonlyonce 1.8.7. Open Access impact indicators as a replacement for existing research bibliometric systems The most-used bibliometric indicator systems (e.g. Web of Science, Scopus) are commercial,paid-forservicesthatarenotavailabletoallandwhichcreatedataonly foraproportionoftheworld’sresearchliterature.Newcitationservicesworkingon OpenAccesscontentwouldencourageresearcherstomaketheirworkOpenAccessand convinceadministratorsthatOpenAccesscanbeusefulinresearchassessmentand monitoring. Box 7: Next steps on Open Access impact indicators as a replacement for existing research bibliometric systems include: • Lookatthetechnicalchallengesthissuggestionpresents • Explorethepossibilityofdigitalobjectidentifiers(DOIs)beingusedforall digitalobjects,includingdatasetsandcomponentsofcomplexobjects
  • 23.
    SECTION ONE: THEWORKSHOP  21 1.8.8. Linking European and national levels TherearedefinedrelationshipsbetweentheCommission,theCouncilandMS,including possibleresponsesofMStoCommissionguidelines.DoMSneedguidanceonOpenAccess andpreservation?AttheleastthereisaneedtochangethinkingatMSlevel. Box 8: Next steps on linking European and national levels include: • T heCommissioncouldcoordinate,guideandname-and-shameinorderto createacommonunderstandinganddriveprogress • T heCommissionshoulddevelopaformalOpenAccessplan • O napracticallevel,theCommissionshouldimposeOpenAccessasa criterionforFPproposals 1.9  Priorities for the recommended actions ThefinalsessionoftheWorkshopfocusedononequestion:What elements should be part of an action plan for Open Access and preservation in Europe?Thenationalexperts suggestedactionareasandthesewerecollectedonamindmap. Nationalexpertswerethengivenfivevotestocastfortheactionareastheyconsideredof greatestpriority.TheoutcomeisshowninTable1.
  • 24.
    22 SHARING KNOWLEDGE: OPENACCESS AND PRESERVATION IN EUROPE Table 1: Assignment of priority by national experts for action points developed in discussion Votes cast Action point in favour DevelopmentofstandardsforallaspectsofOpenAccess 13 Fundingforinfrastructuraldevelopments 12 CreationofnewmetricsforOpenAccesscontent(usagemeasures,successstories, 9 mediaimpact,citationimpact,etc) Makingthe‘Green’routetoopenAccess(throughrepositories)mandatory 8 Exploration of copyright laws in EU states with a view to recommending 8 modificationorcreatinganewlawonacademicresearchoutputs(whicharenot thesameasmusicandothercreativeoutputs)tosupportorpermitOpenAccess Revisitagreementswithpublisherstoachievepricetransparency,re-negotiateBig 8 Dealsandimprovetheproportionofpublishersthatallow‘Green’self-archivingin repositories Investmentine-researchinfrastructuresinEurope,especiallythosethatsupportthe 8 developmentoftheOpenDataagenda InvestmoreeffortindevelopmentoftechnologiesandenablersofOpenData 6 Supportforcoordinationactivitiestosupportadvocacyandothersupporting 5 actionsforOpenAccess InvestigationofnewbusinessmodelsapplicabletoOpenAccess(includingusing 5 opensourcetechnologiesandafocusonaddingvalue) Supportfurtherawareness-raisingactivities 5 Developmentofpoliciesatgovernment,funder,andinstitutionallevelacrossEurope 4 Developtechnicalinfrastructuretosupportpreservationofresearchoutputs 3 Developmentofincentivesforauthorsandpublisherstoincreasetheamountof 2 OpenAccesscontent DevelopmentofindicatorstodemonstratethebenefitsofOpenAccess 1 Identificationofexistinginitiativesandbuildinguponthem 1 Fundworkondataandmetadatacurationforthelong-term 1 DevelopmentoftoolstosupportdepositandcurationofcontentinOpenAccess 0 collections Encouragesharingofgoodpractices 0
  • 25.
  • 26.
    24 SHARING KNOWLEDGE: OPENACCESS AND PRESERVATION IN EUROPE ThissectiondiscussestherecommendedactionpointsoftheWorkshopinthecontext ofwhatalreadyexistsorisbeingdeveloped,andisdevelopedherebytheRapporteurfor theWorkshop.TheactionpointsrecommendedbytheWorkshopnationalexpertsare groupedunderaseriesofheadingsbelowfordiscussion.Todrawthingstogether,the actionpointshavebeengroupedinawaythatalignswiththeKey Success Factors (see Section1.7.3)thatweredistilledfromthefirstdayoftheWorkshopproceedings(these were:OApolicies,advocacyandculturalchange,infrastructure,fundingandcollaborative approaches).Theactionpointheadingswere: • Stakeholderengagement/involvement(advocacy) • Top-levelengagementandsupport(policydevelopment) • Collaborationsandpartnerships(coordination) • Implementationandmanifestations(infrastructure) Itisunsurprisingthatthedevelopmentofpoliciesandstakeholderengagementappeared astwokeyissuesfromdiscussionsonthefirstdayoftheWorkshop.Worldwide,these twoissuesarealsoattheforefrontofOpenAccessadvancesandEuropeannationswould notbeexpectedtobeanydifferent.Therearenearing200mandatoryOpenAccess policiescoveringjournalarticlesandconferencepapersaroundtheworld,andafurther 70+coveringmaster’sanddoctoraltheses.EUmemberStatesaccountforthegreater proportionofthesepolicies,anditiscorrecttosaythatEUnationshaveledtheway inthisrespect,forbothfunderandinstitutionalmandates.PoliciesfromtheEuropean CommissionandtheEuropeanResearchCouncilhavehelpedraiseawarenessingeneral, thoughmonitoringandfollow-upofthesepolicieshavestilltotakeplacesothattheir impactcanbeassessed. ThisrelativelyhighlevelofpolicydevelopmentdoesnotmeanthatOpenAccessis achievedintheEuropeanUnion,though.AstheWorkshopitself,theresponsetothe CRESTsurvey,andinformalmonitoringbyOpenAccesscommunityplayershaveshown, thereisstillmuchtodo.TheproportionofglobalresearchoutputsthataremadeOpen Accesshoversnowaround20%(Björket al,2010),uponly5%inthelastfiveyears.Possibly, theEuropeanUnionfigureishigherthanthisglobalaverage(ithasneverbeenmeasured), thoughitisextremelyunlikelytobemorethan25-35%.Mandatorypoliciesdosucceedin raisingthepercentagewell,achievingover50%insomecases(forexample,Universityof Minho,thefirstEuropeanUnionuniversitywithamandatoryOpenAccesspolicy,andthe London-basedWellcomeTrust,thefirstresearchfunderwithamandatorypolicy). Stakeholderengagementisanessentialpartofpolicydevelopment,ofcourse,and gettingtheattentionofpolicymakershasbeensuccessfullyachievedin,now,hundreds ofcases.ButtherearethousandsofuniversitiesandresearchinstitutesintheEU,and manyhundredsofresearchfundingagenciesthathavenotsofarengagedwiththe issueofOpenAccess.TheEuropeanUniversityAssociation’sRecommendationsonOpen Access(2009)tooktheissuetonearly800research-baseduniversitiesacrossEurope. Nonetheless,policieswerenotforthcomingasaresult.Attheinstitutionallevel,aswell asatfunderlevel,moreneedstobedone. Ininfrastructuralterms,theEUisdoingwell.Severalcountrieshavecreatedcoherent nationalnetworkedrepositoryinfrastructures,sometimeswithanational‘shopwindow’
  • 27.
    SECTION TWO: DISCUSSIONOF THE OUTCOMES   25 frontingthem.Infrastructurecanmeansofterthingstoo,though.Forexample,The Netherlandshasestablishedanationalauthoridentifierschemesothateveryresearcher inDutchuniversitiesnowhasauniqueidentity,enablinghisorherworkandoutputstobe discriminatedfromthatofotherswhomightbearthesamename2.Thisisanimportant stepforwardincreatingareallyworkable,usableresearchenvironmentforthedigital age.Thedevelopmentofatechnologythatallowsdepositintomultiplerepositorieswith asingleinputhasbeendevelopedintheUK3andthiseasestheproblemforauthorswish, orarerequiredasaresultofbeingundermorethanonemandatorypolicy,todeposittheir papersinmultiplecollections.Theyneedonlydepositinoneplaceandtheitemisthen copiedintootherlocationsbymachineprocesses. TherearemanyotherexampleswhereEuropeandevelopmentsareleadingthewayfor OpenAccessbutatthesametimethegoalofhavingallEuropeanoutputsfrompublicly- fundedresearchremainselusive.TheWorkshopwentontodebateanddiscusswhat concreteactionstheCommissionmighttaketofurtherthisaim. 2.1  Stakeholder engagement / involvement (advocacy) Theactionpointsfallingunderthisheadingare: • CreationofnewmetricsforOpenAccesscontent(usagemeasures,successstories, mediaimpact,citationimpact,etc) • DevelopmentofindicatorstodemonstratethebenefitsofOpenAccess • Supportfurtherawareness-raisingactivities • Developmentofincentivesforauthorsandpublisherstoincreasetheamountof OpenAccesscontent • Encouragesharingofgoodpractices Research metrics Somedevelopmentsontheissueofmetrics–whichthemselvesactasanincentivefor authorsandpublisherstoembraceOpenAccess–arealreadyunderway.Thedevelopment ofnewresearchmetricsisthesubjectofacurrentFP7Callandthereisaprojectinprocess atthemomentintheUSandCanadatodevelopnewmetricsthatapplytoOpenAccess monographsandoneoncitationanalysis.Inaddition,someplayersare,individually, introducingnewimpactmeasuresthathelptoincentiviseauthorsandreaders.One exampleisPLoSONE,publishedbythePublicLibraryofScience,whichhasintroduceda rangeofarticle-levelmetricsthatgiveauthorsfarmoreinformationabouthowtheirwork isbeingusedthanisprovidedbyanysubscription-basedjournal. Aconsiderablenumberofprojectsandserviceshaveorarebeingplannedtoprovideways ofassessingresearchthroughuseoftheOpenAccesscorpusinrepositories(seeBox9 2 h ttp://www.surffoundation.nl/en/themas/openonderzoek/infrastructuur/Pages/ digitalauthoridentifierdai.aspx 3 S WORD(SimpleWeb-serviceOfferingRepositoryDeposit)http://swordapp.org/
  • 28.
    26 SHARING KNOWLEDGE: OPENACCESS AND PRESERVATION IN EUROPE below)andnewmetricsforassessingtheperformanceofrepositorieshavealsobeen proposed(Cassella,2010). Box 9: Resources on research metrics Overviewsofresearchmetricsdevelopedsofar: • OpenAccessScholarlyInformationSourcebook:Researchmetrics • Newmetricsforresearchoutputs:overviewofthemainissues.(2008) • U sagereportingandmetrics:listofexistinginitiatives,studies,projects anddevelopments(fromtheInternationalRepositoryInfrastructuresProject) • P restigeandprofilingmetrics:listofresearchandresearchprofilingand assessmentservices(fromtheInternationalRepositoryInfrastructuresProject) Indicators of Open Access benefits BenefitsfromOpenAccessaccruepotentiallytoanumberofstakeholders.Theresearch communityistheobviousone,butoutsidethisaretheprofessionalandpractitioner communitieswhoseworkisalsodependentupontheoutcomesoftheresearchcarried outinpublicly-fundeduniversitiesandresearchinstitutes.Thesecondaryandtertiary educationcommunities,sciencemediaandmembersofthepublicatlarge(‘othercurious minds’,astheBudapestOpenAccessInitiativeputit 4)arealsopotentialbeneficiaries.In all,accesstotheknowledgethatisbeingcreatedusingpublicmoneycanhelptocreatea well-informedpopulaceandbuildtheKnowledgeSociety. EarlyworktodemonstratethebenefitsofOpenAccessoutsideoftheresearchcommunity isgoingoninthisarea.Twostudieshavelookedatlevelsofaccesstoresearchinformation forSMEs(Ware,2009;Swan,2008)andfoundthemlessthansatisfactory:atleasttwo furtherstudiesarecurrentlyunderwayonthebenefitofaccesstoresearchoutputsfor SMEsandthesewillreportinthefirsthalfof2011. MeasurementofbenefitsfromOpenAccesstootherstakeholdercommunitiesisvery importantbutisnotyetbeingcarriedout.Norhaveanygoodindicatorsofbenefittoany stakeholdergroupyetbeendeveloped.Thefirststepistoachieveabetterunderstanding oftherelevanceandpotentialbenefitofaccesstoresearchoutputsbythedifferent stakeholdercommunities;thesecondstepistodevelopappropriateindicators(asmanyas possible),acknowledgingthatsomeofthesemaybemeasuringverylong-termoutcomes. Open Access advocacy AlthoughmucheffortcontinuestogointoOpenAccessadvocacyworkaroundtheworld, itisstillthecasethatresearchersandpolicymakersremainlargelyunawareoftheconcept and,eveniftheyclaimtobeaware,theydemonstratehighlevelsofignoranceand 4 http://www.soros.org/openaccess/read.shtml
  • 29.
    SECTION TWO: DISCUSSIONOF THE OUTCOMES   27 misunderstanding5.Someofthismaybeduetoincorrectinformationeitherinnocentlyor wilfullyprovidedtothem,butmostlyitisbecauseproperOAadvocacyeffortshavenot yetreachedtheirtargetcommunitieseffectively.Evenwhereaparticularcommunityhas receivedhigh-profileinformationandguidanceontheissue,awarenessremainswoefully low(Bardynet al,2010). ThisissuewashighlightedduringtheWorkshopandisencapsulatedintwooftheaction pointsattheheadofthissection.OneofthevaluableoutcomesoftheWorkshopwasthe opportunityfornationalexpertstosharetheirexperiencesofadvocacyandrelatewhat hasworkedwellandwhatnotsowell,identifyingtheproblemsanddiscussingwaysto overcomethem.Furthereventsandinitiativeswouldofferthechancetostimulatedeeper integrationbetweenMSwithrespecttoadvocacyactivities. 2.2  Top-level engagement and support (policy development) Theactionpointsfallingunderthisheadingare: • Makingthe‘Green’routetoOpenAccess(throughrepositories)mandatory • Developmentofpoliciesatgovernment,funder,andinstitutionallevelacross Europe • ExplorationofcopyrightlawsinEUstateswithaviewtorecommending modificationorcreatinganewlawonacademicresearchoutputs(whicharenot thesameasmusicandothercreativeoutputs)tosupportorpermitOpenAccess MandatorypoliciesonOpenAccessaretheprovenkeytoengenderinghighlevelsof OpenAccesscontent(Sale,2006).Anyotherkindofpolicy,howeverpersuasive,doesnot havethesameeffect,evenwhensupportedbyintenseadvocacyandpracticalsupport. Mandatorypolicies,aswellashavinganobligatoryelement,serveasawareness-raising toolsthemselves,especiallywhenimplementedalongwithsupportinginformationthat reassuresandencouragesauthors. Thereisalackofawarenessaboutthechangingfaceofscholarlycommunicationon thepartofpolicymakersthemselves,however,especiallyatinstitutionallevel.Though thenumbersofmandatorypoliciesintroducedininstitutionshasgrownconsiderably overthelastfewyears6,thishasbeenachievedonlybyintenseadvocacyeffortwithin institutionsandbyadvocacyorganisations.Governmentsandlargeresearchfunding 5 A surveyofmembersofUKlearnedsocietiesbytheAssociationofLearnedandProfessionalSociety Publishers(ALPSP)foundthatmostsaidtheyknewwhatOAwasandsupportedtheideaofOA journals,whilefewknewwhattheyweretalkingabout.‘[A]lthough60%saidthattheyreadOA journalsand25%thattheypublishedinthem,inbothcasesaroundone-thirdofthejournalsnamed werenotOA.”Inaddition“lessthanhalfknewwhatself-archivingwas;36%thoughtitwasagood ideaand50%wereunsure.Justunderhalfsaidtheyusedrepositoriesofself-archivedarticles,but 13%ofreferenceswerenotinfacttoself-archivingrepositories.29%saidtheyself-archivedtheirown articles,but10%ofreferenceswerenottopubliclyaccessiblesitesofanykind.’(FromtheSPARC Open Access Newsletter, January 2011, by Peter Suber: http://www.earlham.edu/~peters/fos/ newsletter/01-02-11.htm) 6 http://bit.ly/dyWWaA
  • 30.
    28 SHARING KNOWLEDGE: OPENACCESS AND PRESERVATION IN EUROPE agenciessimilarlyneedtobemademoreawareoftheissuesandimportanceofopening upscholarshiptoachievegreaterbenefitsforthewidersociety.Thisremainsamajor issuetobetackled,bothatMSandatEuropeanlevel.Europeaninfluenceintheformof enablingsomecoordinationactivitiescouldhelp,andthereisacurrentFP7Calloutfor projectsinthisarea. Action is also urgently needed from the perspective of author (and funder and institutional)rights.ActionstoenableOpenAccessandpreservationrequirethatauthors haveappropriaterights.OneofthegreatestbarrierstoachievingOpenAccessisauthor uncertaintyoverwhattheyareallowedtodowithrespecttoself-archiving.Clarification ofthesituation(forauthorsandpolicymakers)regardingrightswouldhelpenormously, particularlyregardingwhatrightstheyneedtoretaintoenableOpenAccess.AtEuropean levelamostsignificantcontributioncouldbemadeifitcouldbeensuredthatcopyright lawcannotbeoverriddenbycontractlaw.Thiswouldupholdexceptionsforscholarly outputsandachieveabetterbalancebetweentheinterestsofthepartiesconcerned.The WorkshopnationalexpertsdiscussedandcalledforanewEuropeanlawinthisareato standardisethesituationacrossMSandclarifytheissueonceandforall. 2.3  Collaborations and partnerships (coordination) Theactionpointsfallingunderthisheadingare: • Revisitagreementswithpublisherstoachievepricetransparency,re-negotiateBig Dealsandimprovetheproportionofpublishersthatallow‘Green’self-archivingin repositories • CoordinationactivitiestosupportadvocacyandothersupportingactionsforOpen Access • Identifyexistinginitiativesandbuilduponthem • Encouragesharingofgoodpractices NegotiatingwithpublishersonpricingordealsisnotrelatedtoOpenAccesssothispoint willnotbediscussedfurtherhere. WithrespecttopublisherpermissionsforOpenAccessprovisionthroughrepositories, over60%ofjournalsallow‘Green’self-archivingofauthorpostprints(afterpeerreview) andafurther30%allowself-archivingoftheauthorpreprint(beforepeerreview)7.Yet theoverallproportionoftheliteraturethatisopenlyavailableisonlyaround20%and voluntaryself-archivingratesarenomorethanabout15%(thoughtherateishugely increasedonceaproperly-implementedmandatorypolicyisinplace).Improvementin self-archivingrateisnotpublisherpermission-dependent,therefore,butinsteadrequires changesinauthorbehaviour,policysupportand,importantly,clarificationoftheissues regarding rights (institutional, funder and author rights) with respect to scholarly informationwhichdiffersagreatdealfromothertypesofcreativeoutput.Thismatter hasbeendealtwithunderpolicydevelopment(Section3.2)above. 7 EPrintsRoMEO:Journalpolicies–summarystatistics:http://romeo.eprints.org/stats.php
  • 31.
    SECTION TWO: DISCUSSIONOF THE OUTCOMES   29 Asidefromthispoint,coordinationactivityatEuropeanlevelhasmuchpotentialbenefit inthedrivetoachieveOpenAccessandpreservationforscientificoutputs.Ontheone hand,thereisthedevelopmentofregistriesthatcollect,organiseandshareinformation abouttechnicalissuesorservicescancatalysedevelopmentsandhelpavoidduplication. TheseenhanceOpenAccessandpreservationandcontributetotheirdevelopment. Ontheotherhand,advocacyactivitiesgoonineveryMSbutlessonslearnedareoften notshared,andthereisclearlyconsiderableduplicationofeffortthatmightbenefitfrom somecollaborativeapproaches,especiallywithrespecttothecollectionandcontribution ofdatatotheevidencebase.CoordinationatrepositorylevelisnowprovidedbyCOAR (ConfederationofOpenAccessRepositories).Thereare,however,manynational-level advocacyprovidersinEuropethatworkmainlyinisolation.Futuresupportforactivities thataimtoprovidecoordinationandsupportforadvocacyworkacrossMScouldbevery beneficialforOpenAccessandforpreservationinitiatives. Box 10: Resources on collaborative and coordination activities • R egistries:listofexistinginitiatives,studies,projectsanddevelopments(from theInternationalRepositoryInfrastructuresProject) • Repositorysupportorganisations:Listoforganisationsandgroups(fromthe InternationalRepositoryInfrastructuresProject) 2.4  Implementation and manifestations (infrastructure) Theactionpointsfallingunderthisheadingare: • DevelopmentofstandardsforallaspectsofOpenAccess • Fundingforinfrastructuraldevelopments • Investmentine-researchinfrastructuresinEurope,especiallythosethatsupport thedevelopmentoftheOpenDataagenda • InvestmoreeffortindevelopmentoftechnologiesandenablersofOpenData • Developtechnicalinfrastructuretosupportpreservationofresearchoutputs • Fundworkondataandmetadatacurationforthelong-term • DevelopmentoftoolstosupportdepositandcurationofcontentinOpenAccess collections • InvestigationofnewbusinessmodelsapplicabletoOpenAccess(includingusing opensourcetechnologiesandafocusonaddingvalue) Standards and infrastructure StandardsenableinteroperabilityandareessentialforOpenAccesstobeimplemented effectively.Therehasalreadybeenprogressinthisarea.OAI-PMHandtheDublinCore metadatastandardunderpintheinteroperabilityofOpenAccessrepositories.Asetof
  • 32.
    30 SHARING KNOWLEDGE: OPENACCESS AND PRESERVATION IN EUROPE de factostandardswithwhichOpenAccessjournalsmustcomplyhasbeendevelopedby OASPA. Enablinginfrastructuresalsoencompassissueslikepersistentidentifiers(forresearchers, researchoutputs,institutions).Alotofworkhasalreadygoneonintheseareas(seeBox 11below). With respect to e-research, Europe is well-advanced, thanks to the ambitious e-infrastructuresprogrammeinFP7fundingandcoordinatingthedevelopmentof internationally-competitiveinfrastructures8.Thesehavenotnecessarilybeendeveloped withtheissueofOpenDatatothefore,however,andadditionalthinkingmustbedoneto connecttheprovisionofplannedandexistinginfrastructurestotheneedsoftheresearch communityforfreelyaccessibledata. WhiletheoriginaldefinitionofOpenAccessreferredtothescholarlyliterature,researchhas subsequentlybecomemoredata-intensiveanddatasets(betheynumerical,graphical,audio orvideofiles,etc)arenowtheobjectofadriveforopenaccessibility,too–OpenData.There arealreadymanypoliciesfromresearchfundingagencies9coveringtheaccessibilityofdata createdduringworktheyhavefunded,andthenumberisexpectedtocontinuetogrow. Policiessupportculturechangeandthedevelopmentofgoodpractices,buttomaximise usefulnessofOpenData,datasetsmustbefindable,citableandavailableinthelongterm. Someinitiativeshavebeendevelopingaroundtheseissues,suchasmechanismstoenable theidentificationandcitingofdatasets(forexample,DataCite),onrightsofaccessto andre-useofdata(forexample,theOpenKnowledgeFoundation’sguides)andon preservationofresearchdataforthelongertermatinstitutionalandnationallevel(for example,theKeepingResearchDataSafeprojects).SomuchworkhasbeendoneonOpen Data-relatedtopicsoverthelast2-3yearsthatareasonableoverviewisoutofscopehere: thatinitselfindicatesthatworktocollateanddistilinformationaboutdevelopmentsand directionsinthisfieldwouldbeuseful. Furtherworkintheareasofinfrastructureandstandardswillbenecessary,butwhat maynotbecleartoallistheextentofachievementssofarandhowMSmightusethese todevelopOpenAccessandpreservationactivitiesmosteffectively.Here,coordinating activitiesatEuropeanUnionlevelcouldbebeneficial.Whatismissingistheeffective joining-upofaratherfragmentedsystem:thereareinitiativesthataimtolinkdataand journalarticles,dataandrepositories,andrepositoriesandjournals.Butthesearebeing executedinpiecemealfashionwithlittleornocoordination.Thiscanmeanduplication ofeffortormissedopportunitiestoexploitsynergies.Data-drivenand‘liquid’publication may be the best opportunities to make progress on this issue as they will require connectionsacrossinfrastructuralcomponentsofthesystem. 8 http://cordis.europa.eu/fp7/ict/e-infrastructure/ 9 http://www.sherpa.ac.uk/juliet/
  • 33.
    SECTION TWO: DISCUSSIONOF THE OUTCOMES   31 Preservation Preservationissomethingthathaslargelyfallentonationallibrariesorothersimilar national-level organisations to tackle, though there are significant players on an internationalscale,too.Whilesomeacademicpublishershavecommendablytaken stepstoenterintoarrangementswithnationallibraries(e.g.Elsevier’se-archiving arrangementwiththeRoyalLibraryinTheNetherlands),thesearefew,andpreservation isanywayamatterbestconfrontedinternationally.Somenotableinitiativesintheareaof preservationincludetheDigitalCurationCentreintheUK(whichspecialisesinresearch data),DigitalPreservationEurope,theNationalDigitalInformationandInfrastructure PreservationProgram(USA),andtheInternetArchive. Preservationmetadataisanotherareathathasreceivedconsiderableattentionalready (seepreservationresourceslinkinBox11fordetails).Standardshavebeendevelopedfor textualinformationatleast,thoughmoreworkwillbeneededinthecaseofdatainsome disciplines. Researcharticlesarecurrentlypreservedbypublishers,libraries,e-journalarchiving infrastructuressuchasCLOCKSS(ControlledLOCKSS)andrepositories.Digitaldatasetsare preservedbyamyriadofplayersfromthelargeinternationaldatabanksthroughnational datacentres,disciplinarydatacollections,institutionsandsub-institutionalentitiesdown toindividualresearchersortheirgroups.Someofthisdatapreservationiswell-organised andresultsinatrustedprovisionbutthisisnotthecaseoverall.Theestablishmentofthe OpenPlanetsFoundation(whichgrewoutofthePlanetsproject)hasgonealongwayin takingacoordinatingroleandofferingtoolsandmethodologiesforbestpracticewith thedevelopmentofaglobalviewandapproachtopreservationofdigitalinformation. Suchinitiativesmayhavearoleinhelpinguniversitiestotakeresponsibilityforpreserving researchinformationintheirownsphere. Thetechnicalinfrastructureforpreservationofbothresearcharticlesanddataisbeing assembled,then,butthereremainrelativelyloworunclearlevelsoftrust.Long-term accessalsorequiresashiftinbusinessmodelsandculturalpracticesand,moreover,must berootedinthenormsofscholarlybehaviourandthedigitaltechnologiesthatprevail: thesechange,andthatchangemustbeaccommodatedbypreservationsolutions. Workremainstobedoneinthisarea,especiallyintheareaofpolicyandlegalframeworks, andindeterminingsuitablebusinessmodels(seebelowforthistopic).Legaldepositand orphanworkslegislationarerelevanthereandneedtobesupportedbyfurtherareas ofexceptionifacademicresearchistobeproperlyandfullypreserved.Jurisdictional differenceswillneedtobeaddressedinthiscontext. Deposit and curation of Open Access collections Thereisnodoubtthateasingtheprocessofdepositwillhelptoovercomeresearchers’ reluctancetoself-archivetheiroutputs.Enteringmetadataintoarepositorydeposit systemistime-consuming(thoughnotasmuchasisbelievedbythosewhohavenever tried(Carr,HarnadSwan,2007))andfarlessinterestingthangettingonwiththe researchitself.Requiringresearcherstodepositonceisaburdentheycanjustaboutbear
  • 34.
    32 SHARING KNOWLEDGE: OPENACCESS AND PRESERVATION IN EUROPE iftheyareconvincedofthemeritsofdoingso:requiringthemtodepositthesameitem morethanonceismostunwiseandcandamagethecauseofOpenAccess.Anumberof projectshaveaddressedthisissueofmultipledepositandsometechnologieshavebeen developedthatenablerepository-to-repositoryexchangeofcontent. Theearlierworkinthisareawasmostlyforpreservationpurposes,butmorerecentwork hasappliedtodepositofnewscholarlycontent.Examplesarethedevelopmentofthe SWORDprotocol10,enhancementsofthat11,andtechnologiesthatcanstreammetadata frominstitutionalrepositoriestoappropriatedisciplinaryorsubject-basedrepositories andvice versa12.SONEX(ScholarlyOutputNotificationAndExchange)isbuildingonthis workbyidentifyingandanalysingdepositusecases13. Alliedtodepositistheissueofhigher-levelcollectionandpresentationofOpenAccess content.AnewinitiativeinthisregardisOpenAIRE,therepositorybuilttocollectthe outputsfromFP7andfutureFrameworkProgrammeresearchprogrammes.OpenAIRE willcollectcontentbyharvestingfromlocalrepositories(inuniversitiesandresearch institutes),theoptimalarrangementforanationalorinternationalshowcase(Swanet al, 2005).Thismeansthatinstitutionalcollectionsbenefitfromthelocaldepositofmaterial andharvestingfornationalorinternationalservicescanthenbecarriedout.National repositorieshavebeenbuiltonthispatterninmanyEUstates,includingIreland,Spain andtheNetherlands. Business models Ingeneral,existing(‘traditional’)businessmodelsforaccessandpreservationofscholarly contentdonotalignwellwiththeimperativeforOpenAccess.Itcanbearguedthat realignmentisessentialintheinterestsofEuropeanresearch,commerceandsociety. Certainlythe‘InnovationUnion’cannotbeachievedwithouttrueOpenAccesstoscientific information.WherestructuresandpracticesarenowinplacetosupportOpenAccess andrelatedprinciples,theyaretoofrequentlyonthebasisofprojectsorservicesthat arereliantonshort-termfunding,withnosustainablebusinessmodeltoensurelong- termviability.Newthinkingisneededinthisarea,basedontheprinciplethataccessand preservationareintegralelementsoftheresearchprocessinwhichpublicinterestis significant,andnotanoptionalextrafundedpatchilyandwithoutcoordinatedplanning. 10 h ttp://swordapp.org/SWORDdevelopedastandarddepositinterfaceandthemechanismtodeposit tomultiplelocations 11 Forexample,EasyDeposit:http://easydeposit.swordapp.org/ 12 F orexample,Open-Access-Fachrepositorien:http://www.ub.uni-konstanz.de/bibliothek/projekte/ open-access-fachrepositorien.html 13 http://sonexworkgroup.blogspot.com/
  • 35.
    SECTION TWO: DISCUSSIONOF THE OUTCOMES   33 Box 11: Resources on digital preservation • P ersistentidentifiers:listofexistinginitiatives,studies,projectsand developments(fromtheInternationalRepositoryInfrastructuresProject) • A uthoridentifiers:listofexistinginitiatives,studies,projectsand developments(fromtheInternationalRepositoryInfrastructuresProject) • I nstitutionidentifiers:listofexistinginitiatives,studies,projectsand developments(fromtheInternationalRepositoryInfrastructuresProject) • R epositoryharvestingsystems:listofexistinginitiatives,studies,projectsand developments(fromtheInternationalRepositoryInfrastructuresProject) • P reservation:listofexistinginitiatives,studies,projectsand developments(fromtheInternationalRepositoryInfrastructuresProject) • JISC’sdigitalpreservationprogramme:http://www.jisc.ac.uk/preservation
  • 37.
  • 38.
    36 SHARING KNOWLEDGE: OPENACCESS AND PRESERVATION IN EUROPE TheserecommendationshavebeendevelopedbytheRapporteurfromthediscussionsat theWorkshop.ThestructureofthissectionprimarilyfollowsthatofSection2(discussion oftheoutcomesoftheWorkshop)ofthereport,thoughthereisnotaseparatesection hereforcoordinationactivities.Instead,coordinationactivitiesarerecommendedunder variousheadingsbelow,sincecoordinationapproachesarecross-cuttinginnature. 3.1  Advocacy Coordinationofadvocacyeffortscouldsupportandimprovetheeffectivenessofthe currentMS-levelefforts.TheWorkshopwasagoodfirststep,bringingtogethernational expertsandEUofficialstoshare,learnanddevelopnetworks.Improvedadvocacyin Europecouldresultfromtwothings–coordinationofexistingefforts,andUnion-wide advocacyonaplannedbasiswithcleartargetsandgoals. Recommendation 1: BuildonwhatwasachievedbytheWorkshoptostrengthenthe nascentnetworkandenableandencouragefurtherinteractionsandcollaborations (coordination) Recommendation 2:Encourageandsupportinitiativesthataimtodevelopadvocacy programmesacrosstheUnion Recommendation 3: Fundthedevelopmentofindicatorsthatbetterassessscientific progressandmeasurethebenefittostakeholdercommunitiesacrosssociety 3.2  Policy Policy development is slow because policymakers are not sufficiently alert to the importanceofOpenAccess.Whereithappensitisinpiecemealfashion.Allthosewith alegitimateinterestinscientificinformation(universities,researchinstitutions,research fundingagencies,governments)havearesponsibilitytodevelop,fundandimplement coordinatedpolicestoenableOpenAccessandpreservation. Recommendation 4: EnablecoordinationofpolicyatEuropeanlevel Recommendation 5:Encourageandsupportinitiativesthataimtoincreaseawarenessand understandingoftheissuesaroundOpenAccessandpreservationatpolicymakerlevels 3.3  Rights AppropriaterightsarerequiredtoenableOpenAccessandpreservationbutthecurrent situationisunclearorevenprohibitive.Stakeholdersneedtobebetterappraisedof theissues:Europeancoordinationonclarifyingandagreeingtherightsrequiredwould providethemostelegantsolution.
  • 39.
    SECTION THREE: RECOMMENDATIONS  37 Recommendation 6:Informandencourageauthorsandinstitutions(andfunderswhere appropriate)toretaintherightsthatarenecessarytoprovideOpenAccessandenable adequatepreservationofscientificoutputs Recommendation 7:Enableasharedunderstandingacrossallstakeholders(researchers, institutions,funders,librariesandpublishers)ofthelegalterminologyandconcepts involved 3.4  Infrastructure Whilemanyelementsoftheinfrastructureneededforaccesstoandpreservationof scientificinformationarenowinplace,theoverallpictureremainsfragmented.MS-level initiativescanbecomplementedandenhancedbyEuropeancoordination,withtheadded advantageofpotentialsavingsinexpenditure. Recommendation 8: Build upon the investment in OpenAIRE by further enabling coordinateddevelopmentsthatjoinupemerginginfrastructurestomaximumeffect 3.5  Business models Currently,manyofthecomponents–theinfrastructureinitswidestsense,including servicesandtechnologicaldevelopments–supportingandenablingOpenAccess(and,to aslightlylesserextent,preservation)arefoundedonshort-termfunding,projectfunding oronvoluntaryeffort.Sustainabilityiscriticalandmustbeaddressed. Recommendation 9:ProvideEuropean-levelguidanceandleadershiptoMSonthe principleofthelong-termnecessityandbenefitofaccesstoandpreservationofscientific information Recommendation 10:Examinethelong-termprospectsfortheinfrastructuralbasis forOpenAccesssofardevelopedinEurope.Assessthisinthecontextofcreatinga coordinated,viable,sustainablesystemthatwillenablethecreationoftheInnovation Unionoverthenext15years
  • 40.
    38 SHARING KNOWLEDGE: OPENACCESS AND PRESERVATION IN EUROPE References Bardyn,T,Brennan,M,Camp,PP,Carter,J,andFarb,S(2010)MeasuringCapacityand EffectivenessofNIHPublicAccessPolicyProgrammingasaModelforOpenAccess. PresentationattheEvidenceBasedScholarlyCommunicationConference,March11-12, 2010,inAlbuquerque,USA. http://repository.unm.edu/bitstream/handle/1928/11002/Bardyn_ EBSCC2010BardynPaperSlides%20corrected.pdf?sequence=1 Björk,B-C,Welling,P,Laakso,M,Majlender,P,Hedlund,TandGudnasson,G(2010). OpenAccesstotheScientificJournalLiterature:Situation2009.PloSOne,23.6.2010. http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0011273 Carr,L.,Harnad,S.andSwan,A.(2007)ALongitudinalStudyofthePracticeofSelf- Archiving.http://eprints.ecs.soton.ac.uk/13906/ Cassella,M(2010)InstitutionalRepositories:aninternalandexternalperspectiveonthe valueofIRsforresearchers’communities.Liber Quarterly 20(2),October2010. http://liber.library.uu.nl/ CounciloftheEuropeanUnion(2007)CouncilConclusionsonscientificinformationin thedigitalage:access,disseminationandpreservation.2832nd COMPETITIVENESS (Internal market, Industry and Research) Council meeting, Brussels, 22 and 23 November 2007. http://www.consilium.europa.eu/ueDocs/cms_Data/docs/pressData/en/intm/97236.pdf EuroHORCsandtheEuropeanScienceFoundation(2008)Visiononagloballycompetitive EuropeanResearchAreaandroadmapforactionstohelpbuildit.http://eurohorcs.drift. senselogic.se/download/18.45b270a411a9ed8e12780003647/EUROHORCs_ESF_ERA_ RoadMap.pdf EuropeanCommission(2006)Studyontheeconomicandtechnicalevolutionofthe scientificmarketsinEurope. http://ec.europa.eu/research/science-society/pdf/scientific-publication-study_en.pdf EuropeanCommission(2007a)CommunicationonScientificInformationintheDigital Age:Access,DisseminationandPreservation. http://search.yahoo.com/r/_ ylt=A0oG7h8.U49NSEQAEsxXNyoA;_ ylu=X3oDMTB yMTNuNTZzBHNlYwNzcgRwb3MDMgRjb2xvA2FjMgR2dGlkAw--/SIG =13kfjh01f/ EXP=1301267390/**http%3a//ec.europa.eu/research/science-society/document_library/ pdf_06/communication-022007_en.pdf EuropeanCommission(2007b)GreenPaperontheEuropeanResearchArea. EuropeanUniversityAssociation(2008)RecommendationsfromtheEUAWorkingGroup onOpenAccess. http://www.eua.be/eua-work-and-policy-area/research-and-innovation/open-access/
  • 41.
    REFERENCES  39 Houghton,J.,Steele,C.andSheehan,P.2006.ResearchCommunicationCostsinAustralia: EmergingOpportunitiesandBenefits,ReporttotheDepartmentofEducation,Science andTraining,Canberra. http://dspace.anu.edu.au/handle/1885/44485 Houghton,J.W.,Rasmussen,B.,Sheehan,P.J.,Oppenheim,C.,Morris,A.,Creaser,C., Greenwood,H.,Summers,M.andGourlay,A.(2009)EconomicImplicationsofAlternative ScholarlyPublishingModels:ExploringtheCostsandBenefits,ReporttoTheJoint InformationSystemsCommittee(JISC). http://www.cfses.com/EI-ASPM/ Houghton,JohnandSheehan,Peter(2006)TheEconomicImpactofEnhancedAccessto ResearchFindings.CSESWorkingPaperNo.23,VictoriaUniversity,Melbourne(August 2006). http://www.cfses.com/documents/wp23.pdf Houghton,JohnandSheehan,Peter(2009)EstimatingthePotentialImpactsofOpen AccesstoResearchFindings.EconomicAnalysisPolicy.39 (1),1March. http://www.eap-journal.com/download.php?file=696 http://ec.europa.eu/research/era/consultation-era_en.html#greenpaper ht tp : //e c .europa.eu /research /science -so cie t y/do cument _librar y/p d f_ 06/ communication-022007_en.pdf http://ec.europa.eu/research/science-society/pdf/scientific-publication-study_en.pdf Knowledge Exchange (2009) Open Access – what are the economic benefits? AcomparisonoftheUnitedKingdom,NetherlandsandDenmark. http://www.knowledge-exchange.info/Default.aspx?ID=316 Parvan,S-V(2007)StatisticsinFocus:Scienceandtechnology,81/2007.http://epp. eurostat.ec.europa.eu/cache/ITY_OFFPUB/KS-SF-07-081/EN/KS-SF-07-081-EN.PDF Sale,A(2006)‘TheAcquisitionofOpenAccessResearchArticles.’First Monday 11,no.10. http://firstmonday.org/htbin/cgiwrap/bin/ojs/index.php/fm/article/view/1409 Swan,A.(2008)StudyontheavailabilityofUKacademic‘greyliterature’toUKSMEs: ReporttotheJISCScholarlyCommunicationsGroup. http://eprints.ecs.soton.ac.uk/17667/ Swan,A.(2008)StudyontheavailabilityofUKacademic‘greyliterature’toUKSMEs. ReportfortheJISC. http://eprints.ecs.soton.ac.uk/17667/ Swan,A.(2010)Modellingscholarlycommunicationoptions:costsandbenefitsfor universities. Technical Report, Scholarly Communications Group, Joint Information SystemsCommittee.http://eprints.ecs.soton.ac.uk/18584/
  • 42.
    40 SHARING KNOWLEDGE: OPENACCESS AND PRESERVATION IN EUROPE Swan,A.,Needham,P.,Probets,S.,Muir,A.,Oppenheim,C.,O’Brien,A.,Hardy,R.and Rowland,F.(2005)Delivery,ManagementandAccessModelforE-printsandOpenAccess JournalswithinFurtherandHigherEducation. http://eprints.ecs.soton.ac.uk/11001/ Ware,M(2009)AccessbyUKsmallandmedium-sizedenterprisestoprofessionaland academicinformation. http://www.publishingresearch.net/SMEaccess.htm Ware,M.(2009)AccessbyUKsmallandmedium-sizedenterprisestoprofessional and academic literature, Publishing Research Consortium, Bristol. http://www. publishingresearch.net/SMEaccess.htm
  • 43.
  • 44.
    42 SHARING KNOWLEDGE: OPENACCESS AND PRESERVATION IN EUROPE APPENDIX ONE: Workshop participants National experts: Goran Bogdanovic Ministry for Education and Research (SE) EU Bureau of the German Federal Ministry of Alexandra Burgholz Education and Research (DE) Centre for Open Electronic Publishing - CLEO Marin Dacos (FR) Elena Giglia University of Turin (IT) Iveta Gudakovska Library of the University of Latvia (LV) Fridrika Hardardottir Ministry of Education, Science and Culture (IS) Danish Agency for Science, Technology and Grete Kladakis Innovation (DK) Spanish Foundation for Science and Izaskun Lacunza Aguirrebengoa Technology (ES) Eric Laureys Federal Science Policy Office - BELSPO (BE) Wieslaw Majos Ministry of Science and Higher Education (PL) Biotechnology and Biological Sciences David McAllister Research Council (UK) Archimedes Foundation/Estonian Libraries Marika Meltsas Network Consortium (EE) Ministry of Science, Technology and Higher Ana Christina Neves Education (PT) Vit Novacek DERI, National University of Ireland Galway (IE) Ministry of Education, Culture and Science Louise Perbal (NL) Žibutė Petrauskienè Vilnius University Library (LT) Paraskevi Sachini National Hellenic Research Foundation (GR) Austrian Federal Ministry of Science and Peter Seitz Research (AT) Ministry of Higher Education, Science and Petra Tramte Technology (SI) Czech Liaison Office for Research and Anna Vosečková Development – CZELO (CZ) Slovak Centre of Scientific and Technical Mária Žitňanská Information (SK)
  • 45.
    APPENDIX ONE: WORKSHOPPARTICIPANTS  43 The European Commission • Jean-MichelBaer,DGRTD,AdvisortotheDirectorGeneral • Jean-FrançoisDechamp,DGRTDUnitB6 • FrancescoFusaro,DGRTDUnitB6 • GillesLaroche,DGRTDUnitB6,HeadofUnit • MatthieuKleinschmager,DGHR,UnitB3 • Alexis-MichelMugabushaka,EuropeanResearchCouncilExecutiveAgency,A.1 • TheodorePapazoglou,EuropeanResearchCouncilExecutiveAgency,A.1,HeadofUnit • JuanPelegrin,DGINFSO,UnitE4 • CarlosMoraisPires,DGINFSO,UnitF3 • CelinaRamjoué,DGRTDUnitB6 • LorenzaSaracco,DGRTD,UnitB3 • JarkkoSiren,DGINFSO,UnitF3 • EcaterinaStamate,DGRTD,UnitJ4 Rapporteur:AlmaSwan,EnablingOpenScholarship(EOS)andKeyPerspectivesLtd
  • 46.
    44 SHARING KNOWLEDGE: OPENACCESS AND PRESERVATION IN EUROPE APPENDIX TWO:  The format of the Workshop TheWorkshopemployedseveralmethodsforensuringthatparticipantswereableto shareandcontributefullyintheproceedings: Landscape:AvisualrepresentationoftheWorkshopwascreatedanddisplayedonthe wallforthedurationoftheevent.Thisrepresentationcapturedtheflowofactivities thatwasproposedfortheeventsothatnationalexpertscouldseehowtheeventwould developoverthetwodays. World Café:WorldCafésessionsinvolvednationalexpertsinsmall-group(fourpeople) conversationsaroundtablesonwhichtherewasalwaysplentyofpaperandpensto recordkeyinsightsandideas(www.theworldcafe.com). The Circle: nationalexpertssatinalargecirclewithnoobvious‘head’andwithno orderingofseating.TheCircleechoesancientandtraditionalformsofhumangathering for discussion and decision-making (www.artofhosting.org/thepractice/methods/ circlepractise/) Pro-Action Café: nationalexpertsgatherinacircleandindividualsvolunteertohost small-groupdiscussionsonaparticulartopic.Thesevolunteer‘hosts’eachremainatone ofthetablesintheWorldCafé,whileotherparticipantsmovefromtabletotable,taking theopportunitytoengageindiscussionsonaselectionoftopics.Thehostsrecordthe mainissuesarisingindiscussionsattheirowntable,forlaterreportingtothewholegroup. Check-in, Check-out: usedinthiscasesystematicallyatthebeginningandendofthe days’proceedings,thisinvolvesnationalexpertssittinginacircleandrespondingtoa keyquestionthatoneoftheleadersposes.Theaimistogatherexperiences/thoughts togetherandencouragesomeconsolidationofthinking. Collective mind map:amindmapisconstructedinrealtimeasparticipantsoffer reflections,suggestionsandideas.ItwasusedinthisWorkshopattheveryend,tocollect suggestionsforthemostimportantissues.Participantsthenvotedforthe5issuesmost importantintheirview.Thisenabledtheconstructionofanoverallrankingofprioritiesfor futureconcreteactionsonOpenAccessandpreservation.
  • 47.
    APPENDIX THREE: OPENACCESS – THE EUROPEAN CONTEXT  45 APPENDIX THREE: Open Access – The european context Thissectionwillprovideabriefoverviewofthebackgroundtotheworkshop,specifically: • Thestudyonscientificinformationinthedigitalage,2006(EuropeanCommission, 2006) • Theconferenceresultingfromthestudy,February2007 14 • TheCouncilConclusions,2007(CounciloftheEuropeanUnion,2007) • TheCREST(Comité de la recherche scientifique et technique;inEnglish:Scientificand TechnicalResearchCommittee)surveyofmembersin2008 • ThesessiononOpenAccessandpreservationintheERAconferenceonthefuture ofscienceinEurope(2009) 15 Does scientific publishing work well? Becausescientificpublishingmodelsderivefromtheprint-on-paperage,thepredominant businessmodelissubscription-based.Mostuniversitylibrariescanaffordsubscriptionsto onlyaproportionoftheseandlackofaccessremainsamajorimpedimenttotheworkof mostresearchers,eveninresearch-intensive,developedcountries16. Interestinimprovingthesharingofscientificinformationgrewmarkedlywhen,in2004, theEuropeanCommissionembarkeduponanexaminationofthescientificpublishing marketinEurope.In2006,theresultant‘Study on the economic and technical evolution of the scientific markets in Europe’(EuropeanCommission,2006)waspublished. Subsequentdebateonhowtoimproveaccessanddisseminationforscientificoutputs engagedtheresearchcommunityandotherstakeholders,includingataconferenceonthe topicinFebruary2007.Theresearchcommunitymadeitsvoiceheardatthistimeinthe formof18,500signaturesgatheredinfourweeksforapetition,organisedbytheKnowledge Exchangepartnership,callingfortheCommissiontoimplementarecommendationfrom theStudythattheCommissionguaranteethatresultsfrompublicly-fundedresearchbe madepublicly-accessibleshortlyafterpublication17.Fouryearslater,thepetitioncontinues togathersignatures[thenumberofsignatoriesinearly2011isaround28,000]. TheoutcomeoftheoverallexercisewastheadoptionbytheCommissionofaCommunication on Scientific Information in the Digital Age: Access, Dissemination and Preservation,apolicy documentannouncingaseriesofmeasuresthatincludedexperimentingwithOpenAccess 14 E uropeanCommissionpressrelease:Scientificinformationinthedigitalage:Ensuringcurrentand futureaccessforresearchandinnovationhttp://europa.eu/rapid/pressReleasesAction.do?reference= IP/07/190format=HTMLaged=0language=ENguiLanguage=en 15 h ttp://ec.europa.eu/research/conferences/2009/era2009/index_en.htm 16 ‘ …manyresearchersareencounteringdifficultiesingettingaccesstothecontenttheyneedandthat thisishavingasignificantimpactontheirresearch.’Press Release: Overcoming barriers,Research InformationNetwork,London(2009).Availablehttp://www.rin.ac.uk/our-work/using-and-accessing- information-resources/overcoming-barriers-access-research-information.Seealsothefullreport: http://www.rin.ac.uk/system/files/attachments/Sarah/Overcoming-barriers-report-Dec09_0.pdf 17 h ttp://www.ec-petition.eu/
  • 48.
    46 SHARING KNOWLEDGE: OPENACCESS AND PRESERVATION IN EUROPE andfundinge-infrastructures(EuropeanCommission,2007).TheCommissionhassince enactedsomeofthemeasures.ThereisafulllistofOpenAccess-relatedactivitiesonthe Commission’swebsite18.Themeasuresincludethefundingofaseriesofprojects,including LiquidPublications19,SOAP(StudyofOpenAccessPublishing)20 ;PEER(Publishingandthe EcologyofEuropeanresearch)21 ;OAPEN22,NECOBELACandothers;amandatorypolicyon providingOpenAccessfor20%ofoutputsfromFP7-fundedresearchandthefundingofa Europeanrepositoryande-infrastructure,OpenAIRE23,tohousetheseoutputs.TheEuropean ResearchCouncil,whichwaslaunchedinearly2007witha€7.5billionbudget,hasdeveloped apolicyonOpenAccessforresearchoutputsfromtheworkitfunds. TheCommissionhasnotbeentheonlyinfluentialactor.ECdevelopmentsweretakingplace againstabackdropofpolicyactivity–boldapproaches–onthepartofresearchfundersinthe ERAandelsewhere.In2006,sixofthesevenUKresearchcouncils,theircounterpartinAustria, andAustralia’stworesearchcouncilsallintroducedmandatorypoliciesonOpenAccess. Duringthefollowingyear,14morefundersfollowedsuit,elevenoftheminERA(includingthe newly-establishedEuropeanResearchCouncil),oneinCanadaandtwointheUSincluding, notably,theNationalInstitutesofHealth,theworld’slargestresearchfundingbody. Morerecently,furtherbodieshavedeclaredtheirsupportfor,andreinforcedtheimportance of,OpenAccess,includingtheEuropeanUniversityAssociation(EuropeanUniversity Association)andEuroHORCs(EuropeanHeadsofResearchCouncils)andtheEuropean ScienceFoundation(EuroHORCsandEuropeanScienceFoundation).Therearenowat least257mandatoryOpenAccesspoliciesinforcefromresearchfunders(46policies), universitiesandresearchinstitutes(108policies)andindividualdepartments,facultiesor schoolsinresearch-basedinstitutions(29policies)24.Mandatorypoliciescoveringdoctoral andmaster’stheseshavealsobeenintroducedinsomeinstitutions(73policies). Economic issues AlongsidetheseOpenAccess-relateddevelopments,otherplayerswereconnectingaccess toscientificinformationwitheconomics.InAustralia,JohnHoughtonandhiscolleagues conductedaseriesofstudiesontheeconomicsofscholarlycommunicationandpublished resultsindicatingthatOpenAccesswouldprovidebothefficiencyimprovementsand monetarysavingsinscholarlycommunication(Houghtonet al,2006;Houghton Sheehan,2006;HoughtonSheehan,2009).Houghton’srecentstudydemonstrating thecosts,benefitsandeconomicadvantagesofOpenAccessonanationalbasisforthe 18 http://ec.europa.eu/research/science-society/open_access 19 http://project.liquidpub.org/ 20 http://project-soap.eu/ 21 http://www.peerproject.eu/ 22 http://www.oapen.org 23 http://www.openaire.eu/ 24 R egistryofOpenAccessRepositoryMaterialArchivingPolicies: http://www.eprints.org/openaccess/policysignup/
  • 49.
    APPENDIX THREE: OPENACCESS – THE EUROPEAN CONTEXT  47 UK(Houghtonet al,2009),hasbeenextendedtootherEUcountries(TheNetherlands andDenmark)(KnowledgeExchange,2009)andtoindividualinstitutions(Swan,2010). IneverycaseOpenAccessattainedthroughOpenAccessjournals(‘OApublishing’)or throughOpenAccessrepositorieshasbeenshowntobemorecosteffectivethanthe currentsubscription-based,access-restrictionsystem. Meanwhile,inrespectofknowledge-sharingbetweenpublicresearchandindustry,a desirablegoalfortheERA(seenextsection),theEU’sownCommunity Innovation Survey wasshowingthatthereisa‘weaklinkbetweeninnovativeenterprises(mainlysmall- andmediumsizedenterprises,SMEs)andpublicresearchinstitutes/universities’and that‘innovativeenterprisesfindcooperationpartnersmoreeasilyamongsuppliersor customersthaninuniversitiesorpublicresearchinstitutes’(Parvan,2007). TwostudiesonaccessibilityofuniversityresearchtoSMEshavebeenconductedrecently.In astudyof186SMEs,Wareshowedthatwhile71%ofrespondentsininnovativecompanies findaccessingarticlesfairly/veryeasy,two-thirds(66%)ofrespondentspayforaccess intheformofsubscriptionsorsocietymembershipswhichis,ofcourse,easybutcostly. Thereisalsotheremainder,‘bydefinition,aminority(29%)forwhomaccesswasfairlyor verydifficult’(Ware,2009).Inasmallerstudyontheeaseofaccess23SMEstothe‘grey’ academicliterature(unpublishedreports,workingpapers,thesesanddissertations),Swan reportedthatSMEshadproblemsdiscoveringrelevantgreyliterature,andinaccessing publishedliterature(forreasonsofcost)(Swan,2008). The ERA Green Paper SevenyearsafterthecreationoftheERAtheCommissionpublishedaGreenPaper (EuropeanCommission,2007b)assessingprogressmadeandstimulatingdiscussion anddebateaboutthefutureorientationofERA.TheGreenPaperoutlinedsixfeatures neededby‘thescientificcommunity,businessandcitizens’thatERAshouldhave,oneof thembeing‘effective knowledge-sharing, notably between public research and industry, as well as with the public at large’.Alsoofrelevancetoknowledge-sharingisanotherof thefeatures,‘opening the European Research Area to the world with special emphasis on
  • 50.
    48 SHARING KNOWLEDGE: OPENACCESS AND PRESERVATION IN EUROPE neighbouring countries and a strong commitment to addressing the global challenges with Europe’s partners’25. TwoofthequestionsthattheGreenPaperposedinordertostimulateknowledge-sharing werethese: • IsthereaneedforEU-levelpoliciesandpracticestoimproveandensureOpen Accesstoanddisseminationofrawdataandpeer-reviewedpublicationsfrom publiclyfundedresearchresults? • WhatshouldconstituteaEuropeanFrameworkforknowledgesharingbetween researchinstitutionsandindustrybasedonidentifiedgoodpracticeandmodels? ThesearecorequestionsthatresurfacedintheWorkshop.Headlinefindingsfromthe responsestotheGreenPaperthatshowedthat68%ofrespondentsthinkthatraw datafrompublicly-fundedresearchshouldbemademorereadilyaccessible,theseand moresuggestingthatEU-levelcollectionsarethepreferredlocation.Sixty-fivepercent ofthetotalrespondentpopulationthinksthatpeer-reviewedpublicationsresulting frompublicly-fundedresearchshouldbeaccessiblewithoutcharge(includedinthis respondentgrouparepublishers,71%ofwhomdisagreewiththisstatement).And65% ofrespondents(presumablymostlythesame65%)alsobelievethatthesepublications shouldbeavailablewithoutchargeassoonastheyarepublished. Council Conclusions Latein2007,theCounciloftheEuropeanUnionadopteditsConclusions on Scientific Information in the Digital Age: Access, Dissemination and Preservation(Councilofthe EuropeanUnion,2007).ThisdocumentcalleduponMemberStatestoreinforce national strategies and structures for access to and dissemination of scientific information,and pledgedtoenhance the co-ordination between Member States on access and dissemination policies and practicesandtoensure the long term preservation of scientific information – including publications and data – and pay due attention to scientific information in national preservation strategies. 25 R elevant statements contained in the Green paper in reference to the topic of Knowledge Sharing are: ‘State-of-the-art knowledge is crucial for successful research in any scientific discipline. Reliable, affordable and permanent access to, and widespread dissemination of, scientific research results should therefore become defining principles for Europe’s research landscape.Thedigitalerahasopenedupnumerouspossibilitiesinthisrespect.Opportunities forprogresscanbeseen,notablyinthedevelopmentofonlinelibraries,repositoriesofscientific informationanddatabasesofpublicationsandpubliclyfundedresearchresults.Theseshould be integrated at European level and interlinked with similar databases in third countries. In particular,thesystembywhichscientificinformationispublishedispivotalforitsvalidation anddissemination,andthushasamajorimpactontheexcellenceofEuropeanresearch.Europe should stimulate the development of a “continuum” of accessible and interlinked scientific informationfromrawdatatopublications,withinandacrossdifferentcommunitiesandcountries.' ‘Effectiveknowledgesharing[…]shouldconsistof:openandeasyaccesstothepublicknowledgebase; asimpleandharmonisedregimeforIntellectualPropertyRights,includingacost-efficientpatenting systemandsharedprinciplesforknowledgetransferandcooperationbetweenpublicresearchand industry;innovativecommunicationchannelstogivethepublicatlargeaccesstoscientificknowledge, themeanstodiscussresearchagendasandthecuriositytolearnmoreaboutscience.’
  • 51.
    APPENDIX THREE: OPENACCESS – THE EUROPEAN CONTEXT  49 TheEuropeanCommissionitselfwasinvitedtomonitorgoodpracticesandsupport MemberStatepolicyco-ordination.Specifically,itwasinvitedtoimplement the measures announced in the Communication on ‘scientific information in the digital age: access, dissemination and preservation’ and in particular to: - experiment with Open Access to scientific publications resulting from projects funded by the EU Research Framework Programmes - support experiments and infrastructures with a cross-border added-value for access to and preservation of scientific information - contribute to improved policy co-ordination between Member States and to a constructive debate between stakeholders The Commission responded in part by including a session on Open Access and Preservation in the ERA conference ‘Working Together to Strengthen Science in Europe’conferenceinOctober200926.Thesessionresultedinasetofconclusionsand recommendationswhichidentifiedthreemainissues:theneedtoprovideresearch outputs(articles,books,datasetsetc)inanopenlyaccessibleandeasilyre-usableway; theneedtoprovideanintegratedsystemofsciencecommunication–anecosystemof infrastructures–thatensurestheoptimalfunctioningofthesystem;andtheweaklink betweenthebasicresearchsectorandinnovativeindustriesinERA. The CREST27 questionnaire (Comité de la recherche scientifique et technique; in  English: Scientific and Technical Research Committee) AquestionnairewassentouttoMemberStatesviatheScientificandTechnicalResearch Committee(CREST)inDecember2008andresponsescollectedinthefirstpartof2009. Twenty-fiveresponseswerereceivedfromCRESTmembers(EUMemberStates)andfive fromCRESTobservers.Aselectedfewofthesummarisedfindingsfromtheresponses indicatethegeneralstateofaffairsreported: • Withrespecttonational strategies on access and dissemination,theCommission concludesthatwhile‘the growing number of national initiatives in this field shows a clear and encouraging move towards the development of policies in these areas …there are very few of the nationally coordinated strategies or policies called for in the 2007 Council Conclusions’. • Oncoordination activities on access and dissemination,theCommissionfinds that‘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’.Moreover,despitesomeadvances,‘transparency regarding big deals [between publishers and libraries] is still lacking’.Thereisbetternewson repositoriesinEurope,though,withthefindingthat‘significant coordination initiatives are underway regarding interoperability of repositories’. 26 http://ec.europa.eu/research/conferences/2009/era2009/index_en.htm 27 renamedERAC(EuropeanResearchAreaCommittee)in2010
  • 52.
    50 SHARING KNOWLEDGE: OPENACCESS AND PRESERVATION IN EUROPE Regarding long term preservation,‘specific attention to the preservation of scientific information needs to be further developed within most existing national policies and legislative frameworks’. Inadditiontothesemainsummarypoints,thefindingsshowedthatstrategiesarelargely attheleveloffundingbodies,universitiesorlibrariesratherthanattruenationallevel; thatpoliciesonsharingdataarelesswell-developedthanthoseonsharingarticles;and thatresearchersremainlargelyunawarethatOpenAccessisnotnecessarilyinconflict withthecopyrightpoliciesofscientificpublishers. European initiatives for the future Europe2020,thestrategyforgrowthandjobsinEurope,encompassessevenflagship initiatives.Amongstthem,heDigitalAgendaaimstomaximisethesocialandeconomic potentialofICT(InformationCommunicationTechnologies).TheInnovationUnion focusesoninnovationandhowbesttofosterit.Openaccessibilityofresearchfindings mustplayaroleinbothofthese.TheEuropeanUnionDigitalAgenda(EDA)aimstodeliver sustainableeconomicandsocialbenefitsfromadigitalsinglemarketbasedonultra fastbroadbandandinteroperableapplications.Itfocusesonsevenmainareas,ofwhich researchandinnovationisone.InadditionaCommunicationonScientificInformation willbeissuedbytheendof2011.
  • 53.
    APPENDIX FOUR: QUESTIONNAIREON NATIONAL OPEN ACCESS AND PRESERVATION POLICIES  51 APPENDIX FOUR: Questionnaire on national open access  and preservation policies Part A - Respondent 1. General information Country: Organisation: Nameofrespondent: Contactdata: Inwhatcapacitydoyouworkonopenaccessand/orpreservationissues? Internetlinkstopagescontaininginformationonnationalpoliciesand/orotheruseful information: Part B - Strategies in your Member State 2. Policies in place for dissemination of and access to scientific information (including information on how these policies are financed) Pleasedescribe,orupdatethesituationasreportedin2009.
  • 54.
    52 SHARING KNOWLEDGE: OPENACCESS AND PRESERVATION IN EUROPE Pleasealsoanswerthefollowing(youmayhavetobringclarificationsintheboxabove): 2�1 Generally speaking, the situation has (even slightly) improved since 2009: ¨Yes ¨No 2�2 Your country experienced problems in the implementation of the 2007 Council Conclusions (e�g� legal barriers): ¨Yes ¨No 2�3 Policies (or overall strategies) are in place: ¨Yes,atnationallevel ¨Yes,atregionallevel ¨No 2�4 Laws or legal provisions encouraging or mandating OA are in place: ¨Yes,atnationallevel ¨Yes,atregionallevel ¨No 2�5 Some funding bodies have OA policies: ¨Yes(pleaseprovidealist) ¨No 2�6 Some universities and research centres have OA policies: ¨Yes(pleaseprovidealist) ¨No 3. Policies and arrangements in place aiming to provide open access to peer-reviewed scientific journal articles resulting from public research funding Pleasedescribe,orupdatethesituationasreportedin2009. Pleasealsoanswerthefollowing(youmayhavetobringclarificationsintheboxabove): 3�1 There are special incentives in place to encourage researchers to provide OA to their publications: ¨Yes ¨No 3�2 There are some agreements regarding open access between funding bodies and publishers: ¨Yes ¨No 3�3 In the case of funding body policies on OA, research contracts or grant agreements include a specific reference to provide open access: ¨Yes(pleaseprovidephrasing) ¨No
  • 55.
    APPENDIX ONE: WORKSHOPPARTICIPANTS  53 4. Policies and arrangements in place aiming to provide open access to other publicly funded research results (e.g. research data) Pleasedescribe,orupdatethesituationasreportedin2009. 5. Assess the situation regarding: 5�1 The way in which researchers exercise their copyright on scientific articles Pleasedescribe,orupdatethesituationasreportedin2009. 5�2 The level of investments in the dissemination of scientific information as compared to total investments in research Pleasedescribe,orupdatethesituationasreportedin2009. Pleasealsoanswerthefollowing(youmayhavetobringclarificationsintheboxabove): 5�2�1 The development (growth) of OA is measured: ¨Yes ¨No 5�2�2 The impact of OA is measured (examples: citation count, impact on RD budget, increased access by specific stakeholders, e�g� SMEs, uptake of research results leading to innovative findings)? ¨Yes ¨No 5�3 The use of financial mechanisms to improve access (e�g� refunding VAT for digital journal subscriptions to libraries) Pleasedescribe,orupdatethesituationasreportedin2009.
  • 56.
    54 SHARING KNOWLEDGE: OPENACCESS AND PRESERVATION IN EUROPE 6. Policies and activities with regard to repositories (“open archives”) of scientific information (including repository sustainability and interoperability) Pleasedescribe,orupdatethesituationasreportedin2009. 7. Activities bringing together main stakeholders in the debate of scientific information (e.g. scientists, funding bodies librairies, scientific publishers) Pleasedescribe,orupdatethesituationasreportedin2009. Part C – Co-ordination between Member States 8. Assess the situation regarding the way your Member State has been involved in exploring possibilities for co-ordination e.g. 8�1 Defining common national funding bodies principles on open access Pleasedescribe,orupdatethesituationasreportedin2009. 8�2 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 Pleasedescribe,orupdatethesituationasreportedin2009.
  • 57.
    APPENDIX ONE: WORKSHOPPARTICIPANTS  55 8�3 Working towards the interoperability of repositories of scientific information in Member States Pleasedescribe,orupdatethesituationasreportedin2009. 8�4 (other) Pleasedescribe,orupdatethesituationasreportedin2009. Pleasealsoanswerthefollowing(youmayhavetobringclarificationsintheboxabove): 8�4�1 Your country - or organisations in your country - works in collaboration with others on topics related to access, dissemination and preservation: ¨Yes ¨No Part D – Long term preservation of scientific information (publication and data) 9. Structured approach to the long term preservation of scientific information (whether incorporated 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) Pleasedescribe,orupdatethesituationasreportedin2009.
  • 58.
    56 SHARING KNOWLEDGE: OPENACCESS AND PRESERVATION IN EUROPE 10. Specific characteristics of scientific information taken into account when setting up the legislative framework (including legal deposit) or practical set-up for digital preservation Pleasedescribe,orupdatethesituationasreportedin2009. Part E – Role of the European Commission/European Union 11. Role that you see for the European Commission/European Union in terms of policies Pleasedescribe,orupdatethesituationasreportedin2009. Part F – Additional comments 12. Any additional comment or suggestion that have not been covered by the questionnaire
  • 59.
    European Commission Sharing knowledge:open access and preservation in Europe Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union 2011 – 50 pp. – 17.6 x 25.0 cm ISBN 978-92-79-20449-4 doi: 10.2777/63410 How to obtain EU publications Publications for sale: • via EU Bookshop (http://bookshop.europa.eu); • from your bookseller by quoting the title, publisher and/or ISBN number; • by contacting one of our sales agents directly. You can obtain their contact details on the Internet (http://bookshop.europa.eu) or by sending a fax to +352 2929-42758. Free publications: • via EU Bookshop (http://bookshop.europa.eu); • at the European Commission’s representations or delegations. You can obtain their contact details on the Internet (http://ec.europa.eu) or by sending a fax to +352 2929-42758.
  • 60.
    KI-31-11-187-EN-N A workshop washeld in Brussels, attended by around 20 invited national experts from EU Member States, with the aims of: getting an understanding of Member States’ implementation of the 2007 Council Conclusions on scientific information in the digital age, sharing experiences and know-how regarding successful implementations and best practices, and creating a common vision of what can be done next in terms of policy and action at Member State and at European levels. The report documents the proceedings, sets them in the context of developments so far on open access and preservation at an international level and makes a set of recommendations for future EC action. doi:10.2777/63410