Survey on-open-access-in-fp7 en

7th Framework
Programme

Survey on open access in FP7

ReseaRch & InnovatIon
polIcy

EUROPEAN COMMISSION

Directorate-General for Research and Innovation
Directorate B – European Research Area
Unit B.6 – Ethics and gender

Contact: Jean-François Dechamp

Office SDME 03/16
B-1049 Brussels

Tel. (32-2) 29-61462
Fax (32-2) 29-84694
E-mail: jean-francois.dechamp@ec.europa.eu
RTD-OPEN-ACCESS@ec.europa.eu

EUROPEAN COMMISSION


2012 Directorate-General for Research and Innovation

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

More information on the European Union is available on the Internet (http://europa.eu).

Cataloguing data can be found at the end of this publication.

Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union, 2012

ISBN 978-92-79-21595-7
doi:10.2777/81083

© European Union, 2012
Reproduction is authorised provided the source is acknowledged.

Contents

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 5

INTRODUCTION 9

1. RESPONDENTS’ PROFILE 11
1.1 Research area in FP7 12
1.2. Starting year of the project 14

2. GENERAL CONSIDERATIONS ON PUBLICATIONS 15
Getting a common understanding in the consortium on how
to best share research outcomes 16
Understanding legal issues regarding copyrights and licences to publish 17

3. SELF-ARCHIVING (OPEN ACCESS PILOT IN FP7) 19
3.1. Opinion on the implementation of Special Clause 39 20
Having time/manpower to self-archive 20
Informing the European Commission about the failure of ‘best efforts’ to comply 21
Getting enough external support 22
Identifying a new, satisfactory publisher (journal) 24
Changing publishers/journals 25
Negotiating with the publishers/journals 26
3.2. Publishers 27
3.3. Articles deposited in a repository 28
3.4. OpenAIRE 33

4. OPEN ACCESS PUBLISHING (REIMBURSEMENT OF COSTS IN FP7) 35
4.1 Knowledge of the possibility of reimbursement 36
4.2. Use of reimbursement of open access publishing 38
4.3. Future use of reimbursement of open access publishing 40
4.4. Views on open access publishing 41

5. OPEN ACCESS POLICY IN THE EU FRAMEWORK PROGRAMMES 45
5.1. Open access to data 46
5.2. Sources of information about the European Commission’s open access policies 52
5.3. European Commission support 53

3

Executive summary

Background

Open access refers to the practice of granting free Internet access to research outputs. The principal objective of an open
access policy in the seventh framework programme (FP7) is to provide researchers and other interested members of the
public with improved online access to EU-funded research results. This is considered a way to improve the EU’s return on
research and development investment.

The European Commission launched in August 2008 the open access pilot in FP7. It concerns all new projects from that date
in seven FP7 research areas: energy, environment, health, information and communication technologies (cognitive systems,
interaction, and robotics), research infrastructures (e-infrastructures), science in society (SiS) and socioeconomic sciences
and humanities (SSH). Grant beneficiaries are expected to deposit peer-reviewed research articles or final manuscripts result-
ing from their projects into an online repository and make their best efforts to ensure open access to those articles within
a set period of time after publication.

In addition to the pilot, FP7 rules of participation also allow all projects to have open access fees eligible for reimbursement
during the time of the grant agreement (1) (‘open access publishing’, also called ‘author pays’ fees).

In May 2011, the Commission identified the 811 projects designated at the time and sent a questionnaire to all project coor-
dinators in order to collect feedback on their experiences of both the implementation of the pilot and the reimbursement
of open access publishing costs. A total of 194 answers were received by the end of August 2011. They provide important
input for the future of the open access policy and practices in Horizon 2020 (the future EU framework programme for
research and innovation), and for the preparation of a communication from the Commission and a recommendation to
Member States on scientific publications in the digital age.

Results

General considerations

For almost 60 % of respondents who expressed an opinion, getting a common understanding in the consortium on how to
best share research outcomes is considered easy or very easy. Also for 60 % of respondents with an opinion, understanding
legal issues regarding copyright and licences to publish is difficult or very difficult.

Self-archiving (open access pilot in FP7)

The majority of respondents find it easy or very easy to have time or manpower to self-archive peer-reviewed articles and
also to inform the Commission on the failure of their best efforts to ensure open access to the deposited articles. Many
respondents, however, do not know about the toolkits provided by the Commission for the purpose of offering support to

1. Details can be found in the FP7 model grant agreement.

5

SURVEY ON OPEN ACCE SS IN FP7

beneficiaries of projects participating in the pilot. Nevertheless, when they do, the majority of respondents with an
opinion find them useful.

Identifying a new, satisfactory publisher is rather difficult for the majority of respondents, yet 40 % of respondents
with an opinion find it easy or very easy. Changing publisher or journal is also rather difficult for the majority of respond-
ents — and is equally difficult for all FP7 research areas concerned. However, 35 % of respondents with an opinion still
find it easy or very easy. Difficulties arise when the implementation of the open access mandate becomes concrete:
negotiating with the publishers/journals is considered difficult or very difficult by almost 75 % of respondents with an
opinion.

Half of respondents do not know or have no opinion about which publishers to be in contact with regarding their
open access publications. For the majority of respondents who had contact or intend to have contact with publish-
ers, Elsevier comes first, closely followed by Springer. Then come Wiley-Blackwell, Nature Publishing Group and Tay-
lor & Francis. AAAS and SAGE are also named.

Respondents reported a total of 534 articles deposited or to be deposited in a repository, out of which 406 are or will
be open access. According to the figures given by respondents, a total of 68 articles are both deposited and made
open access. Reasons given for not providing open access are firstly a publisher’s copyright agreement that does not
permit deposit in a repository, followed by lack of time or resources. The largest number of articles deposited is in the
FP7 research area ICT, followed by the environment and health areas. The older the project, the more articles have
been deposited.

The EU-funded portal OpenAIRE (‘Open Access Infrastructure for Research in Europe’) (2) has supported the pilot
since 2009, with mechanisms for the identification, deposit, access to and monitoring of FP7-funded articles. Half of
respondents did not know about the portal before answering the questionnaire; the other half had known of it mostly
through the CORDIS website and various EU-related events, although word of mouth and contact with their Com-
mission project officers were also reported.

Open access publishing (reimbursement of costs in FP7)

The majority of respondents did not know about the possibility to request full reimbursement of publication costs
during the lifespan of FP7 projects and only 25 % of respondents with an opinion think that the option is well-known
in the consortium. Nevertheless, the older the project, the better known the option. In total, almost half of respond-
ents replied that they intend to make use of this possibility in the future.

Only eight projects among all respondents reported the use of reimbursement of open access publishing so far, with
total costs ranging from EUR 0 up to EUR 6 100. Seven replied they would use this possibility again, and only one was
not sure.

2. http://www.openaire.eu

6

E x E c u t i v E s u m m a ry

When asked about financial aspects, about half of respondents are of the opinion that it is expensive (i.e. it is better
to spend project money on other activities), while the other half are not of such an opinion. The vast majority of
respondents are of the opinion that the possibility of reimbursement of open access publishing costs is restricted by
the fact that most publishing activities occur after the project end (i.e. too late for reimbursement to be claimed).

Nonetheless, almost 70 % of respondents with an opinion think that it is better to use self-archiving rather than open
access publishing to satisfy the open access requirement in FP7.

Open access policy in the EU framework programmes

The questionnaire was taken as an opportunity to ask forward-looking questions with regards to open access to data,
the best sources of information about EU policies in the field and EU support to FP7 researchers.

Three quarters of those respondents with an opinion would agree or strongly agree with an open access mandate for
data in their research area, providing that all relevant aspects (e.g. ethics, confidentiality, intellectual property) have
been considered and addressed. There are some differences depending on the FP7 research area, with most agree-
ment in environment, ICT and e-infrastructure, and less agreement in energy. Only a small number of respondents,
13 %, have no opinion on the question.

The CORDIS website and the participants’ portal are considered together the best source of information to get infor-
mation about future EU open access policies. EU project officers and national contact points are also highly ranked.
In addition, OpenAIRE is viewed as a valuable source of information.

In a last question, project coordinators were asked how the European Commission could help researchers comply
with its open access policy. For many respondents, the implementation of open access can be perceived as a burden.
Most comments relate to the following five main categories, in order of importance:

Ÿ Information: The prevailing comment is, unsurprisingly, about information, the lack thereof and the best ways to
inform project coordinators and the consortium on open access requirements in FP7. Information is welcome at
every stage of the process, from the launch of the call to the time of contract negotiations, the signature of the
grant agreement, the kick-off meeting and the commencement of the project. Many respondents stress the need
to send an information pack to all applicants to FP7 calls, to make use of reminders and to inform administrative
persons in charge of EU funds as well as national contact points.

Ÿ Publishers: There are many comments asking the European Commission to inform publishers of FP7 requirements
(in fact it is already the case for all main publishers) and negotiate directly with them. In practice, there are sug-
gestions to encourage publishers to agree on modifications to their usual rules on copyright and licences, to force
them to lower their fees, or to make papers available on the project’s website regardless of the publisher’s policy.
Some respondents ask if more of the workload could be put on the publishers and less on the projects while oth-
ers encourage policy actions. There is also a proposal to ask the Commission to set up its own peer-reviewed open
access publication mechanism.

7


Ÿ Promotion: Many comments focus on the promotion of the benefits of open access in general and on training
of all partners involved (including within the Commission), with a stress on informing (sometimes reassuring) pri-
vate partners that benefit from FP7 funds about the benefits of open access.

Ÿ Self-archiving and open access publishing: Many respondents suggest establishing a system that would fund open
access publishing separately from the grant agreement and its limitation in time. There is no apparent preference
for one system (self-archiving) above the other (open access publishing).

Ÿ Support and assistance: Many suggestions are made concerning support and assistance to grantees, such as hav-
ing a Commission help desk (in fact already a feature of OpenAIRE). The Commission is asked to be concrete and
detailed in its guidance, but also simple, brief, to the point and up to date. Support on how to deal with legal
issues related to intellectual property rights (IPR) and licences is also welcome.

Additional comments focus on the enforcement and monitoring of open access requirements in FP7 and make prac-
tical suggestions with regards to repositories.

Conclusions

The dissemination of research results in FP7, including self-archiving and costs related to open access, is often an under-
estimated aspect. However, it requires specific measures and sustained investment. Despite its recognised benefits,
the implementation of open access remains a challenge. Open access also raises technical questions and legal issues,
linked in particular to how researchers exercise their copyright. Further difficulties are the lack of awareness of research-
ers and of concrete support for them to practice open access.

8

introduc tion

Introduction

Statistics show that European researchers publish roughly 43 % of the research papers produced across the globe. As
all research and innovation builds on earlier achievements, an efficient system for broad dissemination of and access
to research publications and data can accelerate scientific progress. This is essential for Europe’s ability to enhance its
economic performance and improve its capacity to compete through knowledge.

Background

Open access refers to the practice of granting free Internet access to research outputs.

Following an invitation in the Council conclusions on scientific information in the digital age (3) to experiment with
open access, the European Commission launched in August 2008 the open access pilot in the seventh framework
programme (FP7). The pilot is implemented by adding a clause (Special Clause 39) in the grant agreement of all pro-
jects in seven FP7 research areas: energy, environment, health, information and communication technologies (cogni-
tive systems, interaction and robotics), research infrastructures (e-infrastructures), science in society (SiS) and socio-
economic sciences and humanities (SSH). The pilot runs until the end of FP7 and covers approximately 20 % of its
research budget. Grant beneficiaries are expected to:

Ÿ deposit peer-reviewed research articles or final manuscripts resulting from their projects into an online reposi-
tory;

Ÿ make their best efforts to ensure open access to these articles within either six months (health, energy, environ-
ment, information and communication technologies, research infrastructures) or 12 months (SiS, SSH) after pub-
lication.

The foreseen embargo period of six or 12 months allows scientific publishers to ensure a profit on their investment
(by charging for journal subscription), while then providing open access to research articles once the embargo period
has lapsed. The difference in embargo periods is explained by the fact that research findings are considered ‘new’ and
therefore have an economic value for different periods of time depending on the scientific discipline. The pilot’s aim
is to ensure open access to a significant number of scientific articles resulting from research funded under FP7.

In addition to the pilot, the FP7 rules for participation also allow all projects to have open access fees eligible for reim-
bursement during the time of the grant agreement (4) (‘open access publishing’, also called ‘author pays’ fees).

The principal objective of an open access policy in FP7 is to provide researchers and other interested members of the
public with improved online access to EU-funded research results. This is considered a way to improve the EU’s return
on research and development investment.

3. http://www.consilium.europa.eu/ueDocs/cms_Data/docs/pressData/en/intm/97236.pdf
4. Details can be found in the FP7 model grant agreement.

9


Methodology

In May 2011, the Commission identified the 811 projects designated at the time with Special Clause 39 in their grant
agreement and sent a questionnaire to all project coordinators in order to collect feedback on experiences of both
the implementation of the pilot and the reimbursement of open access publishing costs. The objective was to pro-
vide input for the future of the open access policy and practices in Horizon 2020, which is the future EU framework
programme for research and innovation, and for the preparation of a communication from the Commission and a rec-
ommendation to Member States on scientific publications in the digital age.

The online questionnaire was open between 29 June and 26 August 2011 and enabled the collection of a total of 194
responses (success rate: 24 %). Many respondents used the possibility to answer ‘no opinion’ to some questions, but
this constitutes valuable information. The final report was prepared in October/November 2011. Annexes include
tables of statistical results in each FP7 research area.

Acknowledgements

The Commission would like to express its thanks to the project coordinators and managers who have taken the time
to provide it with valuable contributions.

Comments may be submitted to RTD-OPEN-ACCESS@ec.europa.eu

10


Projects were identified according to the FP7 scientific area and the year in which the grant agreement was signed.
The objective was to identify potential differences in knowledge concerning open access, dissemination practice and
overall opinion according to either the area of research or the experience with FP7, and concerning the development
of open access policies since 2008.

The Commission received 194 answers from the 811 projects identified in May 2011 as part of the open access pilot
in FP7.

1.1 Research area in FP7

Half of the 811 projects participating in the open access pilot in FP7 belong to the fields of health and environment.
A category of ‘other’ was introduced to allow for a clarification of the FP7 research area when this was unclear, such
as in the case of joint calls (Table 1a).

Projects with SC39
Number % of total answers (194)
Energy 79 9.74
Environment 185 22.81
Health 224 27.62
Information and Communication Technologies 75 9.25
Research infrastructure (e-Infrastructure) 69 8.51
Science in Society 67 8.26
Socio-economic Sciences and Humanities 53 6.54
Other 59 7.27

Table 1a: Total projects identified with Special Clause 39 in May 2011

With 194 answers, the participation rate of 24 %, i.e. about a quarter of projects concerned answering the question-
naire, is satisfactory. There do not seem to be noticeable differences between the FP7 research areas. About half of
the projects that answered belong to the fields of environment and health. Among the nine projects identified as
‘other’, four are in ‘transport’ or ‘transport policy’, two in ‘space’, one in ‘security’, one in ‘Euratom fission’ and one in
‘infrastructure’ (Table 1b and Figure 1).

12

rE spondEnts’ profilE

Project areas in FP7
Answers % of total answers (194)
Energy 16 8.25
Environment 49 25.26
Health 45 23.20
Information and communication technologies 27 13.92
Research infrastructure (e-infrastructure) 12 6.19
Science in Society 18 9.28
Socio-economic sciences and humanities 18 9.28
Other 9 4.64

Table 1b: Project areas in FP7 of the 194 respondents

9 16
18

Energy
18 Environment
49
Health
Information and communication technologies
12 Research infrastructure (e-infrastructure)
Science in Society
Socio-economic sciences and humanities
Other
27

45

Figure 1: Project areas in FP7 of the 194 respondents

13


1.2. Starting year of the project

Almost 75 % of the 194 respondents answered on behalf of projects for which grant agreements were signed in 2009
or 2010. Only four answers correspond to projects still ‘under negotiation’, i.e. identified as having already started but
with a grant agreement awaiting signature. The lowest numbers of answers are, unsurprisingly, for grant agreements
signed in 2008 and 2011, which are not ‘full’ years: the open access pilot in FP7 started in August 2008, and the list of
potential respondents was identified in May 2011 (Table 2 and Figure 2).

Year of signature of the grant agreement
Number of requested answers % of total answers (194)
2008 17 8.76
2009 64 32.99
2010 77 39.69
2011 32 16.49
Grant agreement under negotiation 4 2.06

Table 2: Year of signature of the grant agreement

4 17

32

64 2008
2009
2010
2011
Grant agreement under negotiation

77

Figure 2: Year of signature of the grant agreement

14

2. General considerations on publications


Getting a common understanding in the consortium on how
to best share research outcomes

For almost 60 % of respondents who expressed an opinion, getting a common understanding in the consortium on
how to best share research outcomes is easy or very easy. However, apart from a few projects that are not research-
based and therefore do not intend to issue publications, a surprisingly high number of project coordinators and man-
agers (almost 30 % of all respondents) answered that they have no opinion (Table 3 and Figure 3).

Getting a common understanding in the consortium on how to best share research outcomes
Number of requested answers % of total number answers (194)
1 (very difficult) 9 4.64
2 (difficult) 51 26.29
3 (easy) 66 34.02
4 (very easy) 12 6.19
N/A (no opinion) 56 28.87

Table 3: Getting a common understanding in the consortium on how to best share research outcomes

5%

29%

26%
1 (very diﬃcult)
2 (diﬃcult)
3 (easy)
4 (very easy)
6% N/A (no opinion)

34%

Figure 3: Getting a common understanding in the consortium on how to best share research outcomes

There does not seem to be any major discrepancy according to FP7 research area or the year the contract agreement
was signed i.e. the stage of advancement of the project or knowledge about open access policies.

16

G E n E r a l co n s i d E r at i o n s o n p u b l i c at i o n s

Understanding legal issues regarding copyrights and licences to publish

There are more views on this question than on the others in this category, as 70 % of respondents answered it with
an opinion. For 60 % of respondents with an opinion, understanding legal issues regarding copyright and licences to
publish is difficult or very difficult (Table 4 and Figure 4).

Understanding legal issues regarding copyrights and licenses to publish
3 (easy) 49 25.26
4 (very easy) 4 2.06

Table 4: Understanding legal issues regarding copyrights and licences to publish

12%

30%

1 (very diﬃcult)

2 (diﬃcult)
31% 3 (easy)

4 (very easy)
2%
N/A (no opinion)

25%

Figure 4: Understanding legal issues regarding copyrights and licences to publish

The largest number of opinions to the effect that legal issues regarding copyrights and licences to publish are easy to
understand is found in the FP7 research areas ICT and e-infrastructure, and to a certain extent in SiS and SSH.

There does not seem to be any major discrepancy according to the year the contract agreement was signed i.e. the
stage of advancement of the project or knowledge about open access policies.

17

3. Self-archiving (open access pilot in FP7)


3.1. Opinion on the implementation of Special Clause 39

Having time/manpower to self-archive

Surprisingly, a relatively small number of respondents have no opinion on this question. The majority of the respond-
ents find it easy or very easy to have the time or manpower to self-archive (Table 5 and Figure 5)

Having time/manpower to self-archive (i.e. deposit in a repository)
3 (easy) 63 32.47
4 (very easy) 19 9.79

Table 5: Having time/manpower to self-archive

6%

31%
21% 1 (very di cult)

2 (di cult)

3 (easy)

4 (very easy)

N/A (no opinion)

10%
32%

Figure 5: Having time/manpower to self-archive

Answers are somewhat varied in all FP7 research areas, except for ICT and the category ‘other’, where the majority of
respondents find it easy or very easy to have the time or manpower to self-archive.

There does not seem to be any major discrepancy according to the year in which the contract agreement was signed
i.e. the stage of advancement of the project or knowledge about open access policies.

20

s E l f -a r c h i v i n G (o p E n a c c E s s p i l ot i n f p 7)

Informing the European Commission about the failure of ‘best efforts’ to comply

The majority of respondents with an opinion on this question find it easy or very easy to inform the Commission
about the failure of best efforts to ensure open access to the deposited articles. Only a very small number find it very
difficult (Table 6 and Figure 6).

Informing the European Commission about the failure of ‘best efforts’ to comply
3 (easy) 46 23.71
4 (very easy) 11 5.67

Table 6: Informing the European Commission about the failure of ‘best efforts’ to comply

2%
10%

1 (very diﬃcult)
58%
2 (diﬃcult)

24% 3 (easy)

4 (very easy)

N/A (no opinion)

6%

Figure 6: Informing the European Commission about the failure of ‘best efforts’ to comply

Informing the Commission about the failure of best efforts to ensure open access to the deposited articles is consid-
ered easy or even very easy for a majority of respondents in the FP7 research areas energy and e-infrastructure, and
rather easy in ICT and SiS. Responses are more varied in environment, health and SSH and in the category ‘other’.


21


Getting enough external support

When it comes to getting enough external support, answers are rather varied, with a few more positive answers stat-
ing that it was easy or very easy (Table 7 and Figure 7). Many respondents with an opinion on the question apparently
do not know about the Commission’s toolkits that are provided for the purpose of offering support to beneficiaries
of projects participating in the pilot (Table 8 and Figure 8).

Getting enough external support (e.g. toolkits)
3 (easy) 39 20.10

Table 7: Getting enough external support (e.g. toolkits)

4%

16%

1 (very diﬃcult)

55%
2 (diﬃcult)

3 (easy)

4 (very easy)
20%
N/A (no opinion)

5%

Figure 7: Getting enough external support (e.g. toolkits)

Getting enough external support is considered easy for a majority of respondents in the FP7 research areas energy,
e-infrastructure and SiS and in the category ‘other’, and difficult for a majority of respondents in the areas of environ-
ment, health and SSH. Answers are somewhat varied in the ICT area.

22


Getting enough external support is considered difficult for a majority of respondents with projects signed in 2011 and
easy for projects signed in 2008.

Many respondents with an opinion on the question do not know about the Commission toolkits posted on its web-
sites. Nevertheless, the majority of respondents with an opinion find them useful (Table 8 and Figure 8).

Do you find the toolkits provided by the EC (model cover letter and model amendment to publishing
agreement) useful ?
Yes 42 21.65
No 9 4.64
No opinion 143 73.71

Table 8: Do you find the toolkits provided by the European Commission (model cover letter and model amend-
ment to publishing agreement) useful?

22%

Yes
4%
No

No opinion

74%

Figure 8: Do you find the toolkits provided by the European Commission (model cover letter and model amend-
ment to publishing agreement) useful?


23


Identifying a new, satisfactory publisher (journal)

Identifying a new, satisfactory publisher is rather difficult for the majority of respondents, yet 40 % of respondents
with an opinion find it easy or very easy (Table 9 and Figure 9).

Identifying a new, satisfactory publisher (journal)
3 (easy) 37 19.07

Table 9: Identifying a new, satisfactory publisher (journal)

8%

42%
27% 1 (very diﬃcult)

2 (diﬃcult)

3 (easy)

4 (very easy)

N/A (no opinion)

19%
4%

Figure 9: Identifying a new, satisfactory publisher (journal)

Many respondents in the FP7 research areas environment, health and SiS and in the category ‘other’ have no opinion
on the question. A majority of respondents in the ICT area, and to a certain extent respondents in the area of SSH,
find it difficult or very difficult to identify a new, satisfactory publisher.


24


Changing publishers/journals

Answers are consistent with the previous question concerning the identification of a new, satisfactory publisher.
Changing publisher or journal is rather difficult for the majority of respondents, yet 35 % of those with an opinion
find it easy or very easy (Table 10 and Figure 10).

Changing publishers/journals
Number of requested answers % Requested answers (194)
3 (easy) 32 16.49

Table 10: Changing publishers/journals

10%

1 (very diﬃcult)
24%
48% 2 (diﬃcult)

3 (easy)

4 (very easy)

N/A (no opinion)

16%
2%

Figure 10: Changing publishers/journals

It seems equally difficult in all FP7 research areas concerned to change the publisher of a journal, and answers tend to
be more negative than those on identifying a new, satisfactory publisher.


25


Negotiating with the publishers/journals

Difficulties arise when the implementation of the open access mandate becomes concrete. Negotiating with the pub-
lishers/journals is considered difficult or very difficult by almost three quarters of respondents with an opinion, and
only easy for one quarter (Table 11 and Figure 11).

Negotiating with the publishers/journals
3 (easy) 25 12.89

Table 11: Negotiating with the publishers/journals

12%

49% 1 (very diﬃcult)

2 (diﬃcult)
25%
3 (easy)

4 (very easy)

N/A (no opinion)

13%
1%

Figure 11: Negotiating with the publishers/journals

Negotiating with the publishers/journals seems equally difficult in all of the FP7 research areas considered. Opinions
become globally more negative than when it comes to identifying a new, satisfactory publisher.


26


3.2. Publishers

Half of respondents report that they do not know or have no opinion about which publishers to be in contact with
regarding their open access publications.

Multiple answers were possible and for the majority of respondents who had contact or intend to have contact with
publishers, Elsevier comes first, closely followed by Springer. Then come Wiley-Blackwell, Nature Publishing Group and
Taylor & Francis. AAAS and SAGE are also named by some (Table 12a and Figure 12).

Which publishers have you had contact with regarding Special Clause 39, or will you most likely have contact with?
None/Don't know 107 55.15
AAAS 8 4.12
Elsevier 58 29.90
Nature Publishing Group 20 10.31
SAGE 8 4.12
Springer 52 26.80
Taylor & Francis 19 9.79
Wiley-Blackwell 26 13.40
Other 19 9.79

Table 12a: Which publishers have you had contact with regarding Special Clause 39, or will you most likely have
contact with?

19
26

None/Don't know
107
19 AAAS
Elsevier
Nature Publishing Group
SAGE
52 Springer
Taylor & Francis
Wiley-Blackwell
8
8 Other
20 58

Figure 12: Which publishers have you had contact with regarding Special Clause 39, or will you most likely
have contact with?

27


Respondents had the possibility to indicate other publishers (Table 12b).

Other publisher Number of FP7 area
times quoted
IEEE 3 ICT
Ashgate Publishing 2 SSH
Environment,
Pensoft 2
e-infrastructure
Actar 1 SSH
Allemandi 1 SSH
American Chemical Society IChemE 1 Energy
American Geophysical Union 1 Environment
American Meteorological Society 1 Environment
ASCE 1 Environment
Bentham 1 Health
Berg Publisher 1 SSH
Clueb 1 SSH
European Respiratory Society 1 Environment
Karger 1 Health
National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences 1 Environment
Oekom 1 Environment
Oxford University Press 1 SiS
Palgrave MacMillan 1 SiS
Public Library of Science 1 Health
Research Media 1 Environment
Versita 1 Energy

Table 12b: Which publishers have you had contact with regarding Special Clause 39, or will you most likely have
contact with? (Answer ‘other’)

3.3. Articles deposited in a repository

Respondents reported a total of 534 articles deposited or to be deposited in a repository (Table 13 and Figure 13), out
of which 406 are or will be open access (Table 14 and Figure 14). Respondents reported a total of 68 articles both
deposited and made open access: 32 peer-reviewed final manuscripts deposited in a repository, 21 publisher’s PDFs
deposited in a repository, three peer-reviewed final manuscripts and two publisher’s PDFs deposited in OpenAIRE
(Table 15 and figure 15). Reasons for not providing open access are, first, that the publisher’s copyright agreement does
not permit deposit in a repository (22 answers), followed by lack of time or resources (13 answers). Other reasons are
lack of information on open access (five answers), no suitable repository available (five answers) and no suitable open
access journal available (two answers) (Table 16 and figure 16).

28


The largest number of articles deposited is in the FP7 research area ICT, followed by the environment and health areas.
The older the project, the more articles have been deposited.

Among the articles resulting from your project (already published or accepted for publication), how many of
these are deposited or will be deposited in a repository (online archive), regardless of whether or not they are
Open Access?
No article published/accepted yet 118 60.82
0 deposited 23 11.86
1 deposited 11 5.67
2 deposited 7 3.61
3 deposited 5 2.58
4 deposited 4 2.06
5 deposited 4 2.06
More 22 11.34

Table 13: Among the articles resulting from your project (already published or accepted for publication), how
many of these are deposited or will be deposited in a repository, regardless of whether or not they are
open access?

Number of articles deposited
140

120
118

100

80

60

40
23
20 11 7 5 4 4 6 6 5 1 2 2
0
y /

d

d

d

d

d

d

ed

ed

ed

ed

ed

ed
ed d

ite

ite

ite

ite

ite

ite
p t he

sit

sit

sit

sit

sit

sit
0 d et
os

os

os

os

os

os
ce lis

po

po

po

po

po

po
ep

ep

ep

ep

ep

ep
ac pub

de

de

de

de

de

de
1d

2d

3d

4d

5d

10

15

20

30

40

41
cle

o

to

to

to

to

n
ti

6t

ha
ar

11

16

21

31

et
No

or
M

Figure 13: Among the articles resulting from your project (already published or accepted for publication), how
many of these are deposited or will be deposited in a repository, regardless of whether or not they are
open access?
29


To how many of these articles is Open Access provided?
0 9 4.64
1 11 5.67
2 3 1.55
3 6 3.09
4 4 2.06
5 4 2.06
More 16 8.25
6 2
10 3
11 2
12 1
13 1
14 1
20 1
27 1
35 1
40 1
50 1
60 1

Table 14: To how many of these articles is open access provided?

Number of articles open access
12
11
10
9
8

6
6
5 5
4 4
4

3 2 2
2

1 1
0
0

1

2

3

4

5

10

sit 41
15

20

30

40
o

po n
ed
to

to

to

to
6t

de ha
11

16

21

31

et
or
M

Figure 14: To how many of these articles is open access provided?

30


What did you deposit and where?
Peer-reviewed final manuscript in a repository 32 16.49
Publisher's PDF in a repository 21 10.82
Peer-reviewed final manuscript in the orphan
3 1.55
repository of OpenAIRE
Publisher's PDF in the orphan repository of
2 1.03
OpenAIRE
Other 11 5.67

Tableau 15: What did you deposit and where?

11

Peer-reviewed ﬁnal manuscript
2
32 in a repository
3 Publisher's PDF in a repository
Peer-reviewed ﬁnal manuscript in the
orphan repository of OpenAIRE
Publisher's PDF in the orphan
repository of OpenAIRE
Other
21

Figure 15: What did you deposit and where?

Deposits reported in the ‘other’ category are the following: ‘project webpage’ (three answers), ‘submitted pre-prints
on institutional web pages’ (two answers), ‘link to OA journal’, ‘not deposited yet to a server’, ‘abstracts of peer-reviewed
manuscripts shown in the project public website’, ‘draft or intermediate versions of manuscript’, ‘pre-print (but
reviewed) versions in a repository’ and ‘IROS 2011’.

31


When open access is not provided, please check all applicable reasons
The publisher's copyright agreement did not
22 11.34
permit deposit in a repository
No suitable repository available 5 2.58
No suitable OA journal available 2 1.03
Lack of time or resources 13 6.70
Lack of information on OA 5 2.58
Other 6 3.09

Tableau 16: When open access was/is not provided, please check all applicable reasons

6

5 e publisher's copyright agreement
did not permit deposit in a repository
No suitable repository available
22
No suitable OA journal available
Lack of time or resources
Lack of information on OA
13
Other

2 5

Figure 16: When open access was/is not provided, please check all applicable reasons

Reasons given in the ‘other’ category are the following: ‘preference to use resources for other purposes’, ‘the article is
published, but not yet available as publisher agreement has to be obtained’, ‘IEEE started addressing the OA issue in
April 2011’, ‘sometimes, partners do not provide PDF versions of their papers or do not upload their articles’, ‘not rel-
evant (OA was provided for all publications thus far)’ and one invalid answer.

32


3.4. OpenAIRE

The EU-funded portal OpenAIRE (‘Open Access Infrastructure for Research in Europe’ (5)) has supported the pilot
since 2009 with mechanisms for the identification, deposit, access to and monitoring of FP7-funded articles. Half of
respondents did not know about the portal before answering the questionnaire. Respondents know OpenAIRE mostly
through the CORDIS website and various EU-related events, although word of mouth and contact with their Com-
mission project officers were also reported (Table 17 and Figure 17).

How did you discover the project OpenAIRE?
I had never heard about it before it was
115 59.28
mentioned in this questionnaire!
CORDIS website 22 11.34
EU-related event 21 10.82
Word of mouth/colleague/friend etc. 17 8.76
European Commission project officer 14 7.22
European Commission leaflets/publications 7 3.61
Conferences 7 3.61
General research ('Google') on the Internet 7 3.61
Science in Society website 5 2.58
National contact point (NCP) 5 2.58
Other 5 2.58
Participants' portal 3 1.55
Articles/journals 3 1.55

Table 17: How did you discover the project OpenAIRE?

5. www.openaire.eu

33


I had never heard about it before it
5 3 3 was mentioned in this questionnaire!
5
5
CORDIS website
7
7 115 EU-related event
7 Word of mouth/colleague/friend etc.
European Commission project oﬃcer
14
European Commission
leaﬂets/publications
Conferences
General research ('Google')
17 on the Internet§
Science in Society website
National contact point (NCP)
21 Other
Participants' portal
22 Articles/journals

Figure 17: How did you discover the project OpenAIRE?

Answers in the ‘other’ category are the following: ‘library services of the university’ (two answers), two answers that
could be associated with ‘word of mouth’ and the invalid answer from the project OpenAIRE itself.


34

4. Open access publishing (reimbursement of costs in FP7)


Independently from the open access pilot in FP7, rules of participation allow open access fees (i.e. ‘open access pub-
lishing’ or ‘author pays’ fees) to be eligible for reimbursement for all FP7 projects (6). Participation in the pilot is not
a prerequisite to have open access fees reimbursed, but the opportunity was taken to ask a few questions about those
projects also involved in the pilot.

4.1 Knowledge of the possibility of reimbursement

The majority of respondents did not know about the possibility to request full reimbursement of publication costs
during the lifespan of FP7 projects (Table 18 and Figure 18). Only 25 % of respondents with an opinion think that the
option is well-known in the consortium (Table 19 and Figure 19).

Article II.16.4 of FP7 Model Grant Agreement allows for 100% reimbursement of publication costs (including
Open Access publishing) during the lifespan of all FP7 projects. Did you know this before replying to the survey?
Yes 93 47.94
No 101 52.06

Table 18: Article II.16.4 of the FP7 model grant agreement allows for 100 % reimbursement of publication costs
(including OA publishing) during the lifespan of all FP7 projects. Did you know this before replying to the
survey?

6. Details can be found in the FP7 model grant agreement (Article II.16.4).

36

o p E n a c c E s s p u b l i s h i n G (r E i m b u r s E m E n t o f co s t s i n f p 7)

Yes
101 93
No

Figure 18: Article II.16.4 of the FP7 model grant agreement allows for 100 % reimbursement of publication costs
(including OA publishing) during the lifespan of all FP7 projects. Did you know this before replying
to the survey?

There is more knowledge about the possibility to request the reimbursement of publication costs among the respond-
ents of the FP7 energy research area (Yes: 69 %), the category ‘other’ (Yes: 67 %) and the e-infrastructure area (Yes: 58 %).
There is less knowledge among the respondents from SiS (No: 67 %), SSH (No: 56 %), the environment and ICT (No: 55 %).

The older the project, the better known the option, as shown by the figures: grant agreement under negotiation (No:
75 %), grant agreement signed in 2011 (No: 65 %), in 2010 (No: 52 %), in 2009 (No: 49 %) and in 2008 (No: 35 %).

37


The option is well-known in the consortium
1 (strongly disagree) 33 17.01
2 (disagree) 77 39.69
3 (agree) 34 17.53
4 (strongly agree) 6 3.09

Table 19: The option is well-known in the consortium

23% 17%

1 (strongly disagree)

2 (disagree)
3%
3 (agree)

4 (strongly agree)

N/A (no opinion)
17% 40%

Figure 19: The option is well-known in the consortium

4.2. Use of reimbursement of open access publishing

The eight projects that have reported the use of reimbursement of open access publishing are from four FP7 research
areas, and have a grant agreement signed in 2009 or 2010 (Table 20 and Figure 20):

Ÿ Environment: three projects from 2009 (seven publications with EGU, six publications with Springer and Wiley-
Blackwell, one publication with Oekom)

Ÿ Health: three projects from 2009 (two publications with Elsevier and Intech, one publication with MDPI, one pub-
lication with Biomed Central)

38


Ÿ ICT: one project from 2009 (one publication with Elsevier)

Ÿ SSH: one project from 2010 (10 publications with various publishers including University Of Amsterdam Press
and Ashgate).

They reported an overall total of 29 publications.

Have you used this possibility in your project so far?
Yes 8 8.60
No 85 91.40

Have you used this possibility in your project so far?
Yes 8 4.12
No 85 43.81

Table 20: Have you used this possibility so far?

8

Yes

No

85

Figure 20: Have you used this possibility so far?

The overall budget varies from ‘no charge’ to ‘more than EUR 3 000’ (EUR 6 100 for one publication).

39


4.3. Future use of reimbursement of open access publishing

More than half of the respondents replied that they would maybe make use of the reimbursement of open access
publishing or that they were not sure, and less than half replied that they probably would. There were only three neg-
ative answers (Table 21 and Figure 21).

Out of the eight projects that reported the use of reimbursement of open access publishing, seven replied that they
would do it again and one replied ‘maybe/not sure’.

Do you intend to make use of the possibility of Article II.16.4 of the FP7 model grant agreement in the future?
Yes 85 43.81
Maybe/not sure 106 54.64
No 3 1.55

Table 21: Do you intend to make use of the possibility of Article II.16.4 of the FP7 model grant agreement in the
future?

3

85

Yes

Maybe/not sure

No

106

Figure 21: Do you intend to make use of the possibility of Article II.16.4 of the FP7 model grant agreement
in the future?

40


4.4. Views on open access publishing

Respondents were asked to give their opinion on various aspects of open access publishing.

Almost 70 % of respondents with an opinion think that it is better to use self-archiving than open access publishing
to satisfy the open access requirements in FP7 (Table 22 and Figure 22). When asked about financial aspects, about
half of the respondents are of the opinion that it is expensive (i.e. it is better to spend project money on other activ-
ities) yet about the other half are not (Table 23 and Figure 23). There are no specificities according to the FP7 research
area, but the more experienced the project, the more they disagree that open access publishing is expensive. The vast
majority of respondents are of the opinion that the option of reimbursement of open access publishing costs is
restricted by the fact that most publishing activities occur after the project end (i.e. too late for reimbursement to be
claimed) (Table 24 and Figure 24).

It is better to use self-archiving to satisfy the requirements of Special Clause 39.
2 (disagree) 33 17.01
3 (agree) 59 30.41

Table 22: It is better to use self-archiving to satisfy the requirements of Special Clause 39

4%

17%

37%
2 (disagree)
3 (agree)
4 (strongly agree)
N/A (no opinion)

31%

11%

Figure 22: It is better to use self-archiving to satisfy the requirements of Special Clause 39 (Pie chart)

41


It is expensive (i.e. it is better to spend project money on other activities, e.g. research)
2 (disagree) 64 32.99
3 (agree) 52 26.80

Table 23: It is expensive (i.e. it is better to spend project money on other activities, e.g. research)

5%

23%

33% 1 (strongly disagree)
2 (disagree)
3 (agree)
4 (strongly agree)
12%
N/A (no opinion)

27%

Figure 23: It is expensive (i.e. it is better to spend project money on other activities, e.g. research)

42


The option is restricted by the fact that most publishing activities occur after the project end (i.e. too late for
reimbursement to be claimed).
2 (disagree) 21 10.82
3 (agree) 77 39.69

Table 24: The option is restricted by the fact that most publishing activities occur after the project end (i.e. too
late for reimbursement to be claimed)

1%
15% 11%


2 (disagree)

3 (agree)

4 (strongly agree)

N/A (no opinion)
33% 40%

Figure 24: The option is restricted by the fact that most publishing activities occur after the project end (i.e. too
late for reimbursement to be claimed)

43

5. Open access policy in the EU framework programmes


The questionnaire was taken as an opportunity to ask forward-looking questions with regards to open access to data,
the best sources of information about EU policies in the field and EU support for FP7 researchers.

5.1. Open access to data

Project coordinators were asked how they would view an open access mandate for data in their research area, pro-
viding that all relevant aspects (e.g. ethics, confidentiality, intellectual property) have been considered and addressed.
Three quarters of those respondents with an opinion agree or strongly agree with the proposal of an open access
mandate for data in their research area, while 13 % have no opinion (Table 25 and Figure 25a). There are some differ-
ences depending on the FP7 research area, with most agreement in environment, ICT and e-infrastructure and less
agreement in energy (Table 25b and following).

Open Access is relevant not only to publications, but also to data: providing that all relevant aspects (e.g. ethics,
confidentiality, intellectual property etc.) have been considered and addressed, how would you view an Open
Access mandate to data in yo
Strongly disagree 9 4.64
Disagree 30 15.46
Agree 91 46.91
Strongly agree 38 19.59
No opinion 26 13.40

Table 25: How would you view an open access mandate for data in your research area?

5%
13%

15%

Strongly disagree

20%
Disagree
Agree
Strongly agree
No opinion

47%

Figure 25a: How would you view an open access mandate for data in your research area?

46

opEn accE ss polic y in t hE Eu fr a mE wor k pro Gr a m mE s

Strongly disagree Disagree Agree Strongly agree No opinion

50

40

30

20

10

0
gy

t

h

T

re

SiS

H

er
en

alt

IC

SS
tu

th
er

nm

He

uc

O
En

str
o
vir

f ra
En

In
e-

Figure 25b: How would you view an open access mandate for data in your research area (by FP7 research area)

47


Sub-figures 25b:

0%

25%

44% Strongly disagree

Disagree
0%
Agree

Strongly agree

No opinion

31%

Energy

4%
12%

12%

Strongly disagree
Disagree

25% Agree
Strongly agree
No opinion

47%

Environment

48


7%

20%

18%

Strongly disagree

Disagree

Agree

Strongly agree

20% No opinion

35%

Health

4% 4%

22% 15%

Strongly disagree
Disagree
Agree
Strongly agree
No opinion

55%

ICT

49


0% 8%
17%

Strongly disagree
Disagree
Agree
Strongly agree
No opinion
33%
42%

E-infrastructure

5%
11%
11%

17%
Strongly disagree
Disagree
Agree
Strongly agree
No opinion

56%

SiS

50


5%
11%
11%

17%
Strongly disagree
Disagree
Agree
Strongly agree
No opinion

56%

SSH

0% 0% 11%

0%

Strongly disagree
Disagree
Agree
Strongly agree
No opinion

89%

Other

51


5.2. Sources of information about the European Commission’s open access policies

Project coordinators were asked to choose a maximum of seven best sources to get information about future EU
open access policies. The CORDIS website and the participants’ portal are together considered the best source of
information. European Commission project officers and national contact points are also highly ranked. OpenAIRE is
also viewed as a valuable source of information (Table 26).

Other answers include: ‘open access publishing houses’, ‘our university library subject librarian’, ‘direct information via
e-mails to project coordinators and dissemination staff in projects’ and also ‘this is an important subject and all means
of information should be used’ and ‘EU/European Commission is [the] last place I would look for such information’.

What are the bes sources to get information about future EC Open Access policies? Please choose a maximum
of 7 answers.
CORDIS website 148 76.29
European Commission project officer 92 46.91
Participants’ portal 78 40.21
National contact point (NCP) 67 34.54
OpenAIRE project 52 26.80
European Commission leaflets/publications 52 26.80
General research (‘Google’) on the Internet 51 26.29
Word of mouth/colleagues/friends etc. 48 24.74
Conferences 40 20.62
EU-related events 39 20.10
Science in society website 33 17.01
Articles/journals 32 16.49
Other 6 3.61

Table 26: What are the best sources to get information about future European Commission open access policies?

52


CORDIS website
32 6
32 European Commission
148 project oﬃcer
39 Participants' portal
National contact point (NCP)
40
OpenAIRE project
European Commission
leaﬂets/publications
48
General research ('Google')
on the Internet
92
Word of mouth/colleagues/
friends etc.
51 Conferences
EU-related events
52 Science in Society website
78
Articles/journals
52
67 Other

Figure 26: What are the best sources to get information about future European Commission open access policies?

5.3. European Commission support

In a last question, project coordinators were asked how the European Commission could help researchers comply
with its open access policy. The field was mandatory in order to stimulate respondents to express their views.

There is a wide range of comments ranked from generally positive (e.g. ‘The contacts with the [project officer] on this
subject have been totally informative’ or ‘European Commission is doing it properly’) to negative statements (‘Brief
[European Commission] project officers, who quite often have little knowledge about this issue’ or ‘This is the worst
questionnaire I have seen for a long time […] Haven’t always answered honestly — this isn’t anonymous […]’).

For many respondents, an open access mandate can be perceived as a burden, and particularly unhelpful if ‘leaving
the financial and negotiating responsibilities at the doorstep of the research’, as reported by a project coordinator.
Most comments relate to the following five main categories, in order of importance:

Ÿ Information: A project coordinator replied that: ‘The grant agreement and general conditions are limited on
advising that there are resources available from the European Commission (like the toolkit) to aid the open access
process. It may be beneficial to clarify this in the official documents.’ The prevailing comment was, unsurprisingly,
about information, the lack thereof and the best ways to inform project coordinators and the consortium on

53


open access requirements in FP7. Information is welcome at every stage of the process, from the launch of the
call and preparation of proposals, to the time of contract negotiations, the signature of the grant agreement, the
kick-off meeting and the commencement of the project. Many respondents stressed the need to send an infor-
mation pack to all applicants to FP7 calls, make use of reminders and inform administrative persons in charge of
EU funds and national contact points. It was also suggested that successful or practical examples should be shown.
One respondent highlighted the fact that ‘existing information seems to be good… once you know where to find
it’ and another stressed that the Commission may help ‘by not talking in legalese’.

Ÿ Publishers: There were lots of comments asking the European Commission to inform publishers of FP7 require-
ments, but also to negotiate with them. In practice, there were suggestions to encourage publishers to agree on
modifications of their usual rules on copyright and licences, to force them to lower their fees, or to make papers
available on the project’s website regardless of the policy of the publisher (and possibly breaching a legal agree-
ment). Help is requested in particular concerning copyright rules. Actions at political (policy) level are also encour-
aged by some, while others asked for more of the workload to be put on the publishers and less on the projects.
On the other hand, there were also suggestions to post pre-prints rather than publications and to allow for an
embargo period in line with publishers’ policies (hence longer periods of one, two or even three years). Some
asked the Commission to set up its own refereed open access publication mechanism. One project coordinator
suggested that ‘the EU should set up an open access journal of scientific research similar to PNAS (Proceedings of
the National Academy of Sciences of the USA)’.

Ÿ Promotion: There were many comments focusing on the promotion of the benefits of open access in general
for all types of stakeholders, to educate researchers and Commission experts, and inform (sometimes reassure)
private beneficiaries of the benefits of open access. A respondent suggested that the Commission should ‘inform
on the pros and cons and the difference from what we normally are used to, when we submit our research to
peer-reviewed journals who then take over the copyright’. Another stressed that ‘without a stronger funder posi-
tion on open access, raising awareness of the issue is painfully slow […]’.

Ÿ Self-archiving and open access publishing: many respondents suggested funding separately open access pub-
lishing, for example with a simple application process, or allowing all publications to be fully charged on top of
the maximum EU contribution and after the end of the project. Among creative proposals, one suggested that:
‘The European Commission should include a clause in the grant agreement giving a prize to those projects which
will conform to the open access policy, for example giving additional funding up to 10 % of the original budget.’
Another respondent however suggested that they ‘keep supporting both green and gold types of open access’.

Ÿ Support and assistance: Many respondents suggested that support and assistance should be offered to grant-
ees, such as having a Commission help desk (e.g. ‘Provide a department with a hotline for information and peo-
ple that would undertake the negotiations with the publishers and the deposition of publications in the Euro-
pean Commission repository’) (7). The Commission was urged to be concrete and detailed in its guidance, but
also simple, brief, to the point and up to date, and to provide information when new tools/instructions are issued.

7. This is already a feature of OpenAIRE.

54


It was also suggested to follow models such as SOPs (standard operating procedures) or newsletters, and clarify
mandates and rationales. Other proposals were to use less bureaucracy and promote simplification. In practical
terms, it was suggested that support be provided for legal issues related to IPR and licences, and the views of
major publishing houses be made available (8).

There were additional comments on the following themes:

Ÿ Monitoring: Several respondents asked for the open access requirement to be made mandatory and also for its
implementation to be monitored through reviews or progress reports. The question of indicators for open access
was also mentioned by a project coordinator who answered that ‘the European Commission will help if it gives
value to the publications with open access policies and if it convinces governments to create valuable indicators
related to open access policies’. Moreover, as highlighted by another, ‘open access policies will have an impact if
its use is somehow prized and merited according to standards for promotion’.

Ÿ Repositories: Some respondents asked for the construction of a compulsory, common, online repository for all
FP outputs, or a website where articles could be stored permanently. Others, on the contrary, stressed that the
Commission should not establish another repository as yet. It was also suggested that the use of PubMed could
be made general in FP7.

The open access pilot in FP7 is about publications only but, as rightly pointed out, ‘it is especially difficult within the
humanities, where there is a strong tradition of producing books and where interpretations of complex empirical
sources take time. More info is needed and more space to write here to explain what is needed.’

A comment was specifically made that partners and other stakeholders involved should be obliged to put their data
in open access. Other comments focused on, for example, providing support to (public) libraries to buy subscriptions,
defining review requirements to certify publication quality and harmonising copyright and libel laws across the EU.
Considering the issue in a wider context, one project coordinator wrote that ‘growing new high-quality open access
peer-reviewed journals in the years to come, for example by funding expert reviewers and review processes, may
improve the situation and also change publisher’s business models’.

There was a comment challenging a European initiative as compared to the situation in the USA (‘Which reason jus-
tifies a separate European open access policy?’). However, some project coordinators asked the Commission to put
open access higher up the political agenda, as undeniably ‘the European Commission will need to promote and adver-
tise open access more vigorously to get people on board’. Getting all stakeholders on board is essential as ‘there needs
to be a consensus between those who fund public research, researchers and the publishers regarding what needs to
be deposited and when, what should be fully open to access and what should be closed. Ideally, there should be no
delay in making research available through open access.’

8. This is already done with the Sherpa/Romeo initiative (http://www.sherpa.ac.uk/romeo).

55

European Commission


Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union

2012 — 56 pp. — 17.6 x 25 cm

ISBN 978-92-79-21595-7
doi:10.2777/81083

How to obtain EU publications
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.

Priced publications:
• via EU Bookshop (http://bookshop.europa.eu);

Priced subscriptions (e.g. annual series of the Official Journal of the European
Union and reports of cases before the Court of Justice of the European Union):
• via one of the sales agents of the Publications Office of the European Union
(http://publications.europa.eu/others/agents/index_en.htm).

KI-30-11-316-EN-C
The European Commission launched in August 2008 the open access pilot in FP7. It concerns all new projects from that date in seven
FP7 research areas. Grant beneficiaries are expected to deposit peer-reviewed research articles or final manuscripts resulting from their
projects into an online repository and make their best efforts to ensure open access to those articles within a set period of time after
publication. In addition to the pilot, FP7 rules of participation also allow all projects to have open access fees eligible for reimburse-
ment during the time of the grant agreement.

In May 2011, the Commission sent a questionnaire to all project coordinators in order to collect feedback on their experiences of
both the implementation of the pilot and the reimbursement of open access publishing costs.

Answers provide important input for the future of the open access policy and practices in Horizon 2020 (the future EU framework
programme for research and innovation), and for the preparation of a communication from the Commission and a recommendation
to Member States on scientific publications in the digital age.

Survey on-open-access-in-fp7 en

More Related Content

Similar to Survey on-open-access-in-fp7 en

More from Jean-François Dechamp

Recently uploaded

Survey on-open-access-in-fp7 en