This blog has been quietly laying dormant for a few years, despite our on-going open access activity and we've decided to re-awaken it to promote the work of the recently formed Ginger Group on Open Access here at the University of Bath.
The Ginger Group was convened by the ProViceChancellor - Research with the aim of ensuring the full text of all research outputs [from authors at Bath] are placed on Pure at the point of acceptance, in readiness for the HEFCE REF Open Access Policy starting on 1 April 2016. As noted on the HEFCE website,
"The policy states that, to be eligible for submission to the post-2014 REF, authors’ final peer-reviewed manuscripts must have been deposited in an institutional or subject repository on acceptance for publication. Deposited material should be discoverable, and free to read and download, for anyone with an internet connection.
The requirement applies only to journal articles and conference proceedings with an International Standard Serial Number. It will not apply to monographs, book chapters, other long-form publications, working papers, creative or practice-based research outputs, or data. The policy applies to research outputs accepted for publication after 1 April 2016."
We'll post more comments and updates here on the blog.
Happy OA Week!
To celebrate International Open Access week we have organised a mini-conference on the theme 'innovations in publication', with guest speakers from within and external to the University. See more at our (other) blog post. If you're at the University of Bath, we hope you can join us in the Graduate Centre, 4 West.
If you are new to the idea of open access to research, you might like to take a look at this blog post from Neil Stewart which is specifically about open access via the 'Green Route' of institutional repositories:
Way back in 2006, SPARC put out their 'Author Addendum', a 'legal instrument that modifies the publisher's agreement' for the author to assert various copyrights.
Basically it's a document that is attached to the copyright form usually received by authors that outlines modifications that the author wishes to make.
HOW TO USE THE SPARC AUTHOR ADDENDUM
1. Complete the addendum.
2. Print a copy of the addendum and attach it to your publishing agreement.
3. Note in a cover letter to your publisher that you have included an addendum to the agreement.
4. Mail the addendum with your publishing agreement and a cover letter to your publisher.
There are now a few varients on the original decision tree flowchard from the Publishers Association that was included in the recent RCUK Policy on Open Access and Supporting Guidance. This chart has been criticised for directing researchers towards the Gold route to open access.
The University of Oxford have released a 'Researcher Decision Tree - 'Green' or 'Gold'. This flowchart gives equal weight to Green or Gold routes to open access.
The University of Manchester has a similar webpage to inform researchers making decisions on where and how to publish. The 'Show Me How' site is a simple step-through process.
If more decision trees become available, we will add them here to this post.
15/05/2013: University of Edinburgh: Choosing Green or Gold Open Access flowchart
We have a guest speaker from the new journal 'eLife' joining us on Wednesday (1:15pm), organised via the Pharmacy & Pharmacology seminar series. The session will be of interest to all researchers - postgrads, postdocs and academic staff.
A brief outline of the session is provided below:
This years penulitmate Departmental seminar has been arranged in conjunction with the library staff to discuss a new model of open access publishing.
Kara Jones from the UoB library will briefly introduce some new developments at the University of Bath in relation to open access publishing - see attached - in light of the RCUK new guidelines that all RCUK funded research must be published in an open access manner - and the potential development that all REF output beyond REF2014 will need to be freely accessible
The seminar will be delivered by Mark Patterson, Executive Director of eLife
"eLife - designing a digital research journal fit for purpose"
The seminar will be followed by coffee and biscuits and an opportunity for people to interact with the seminar speaker and library staff answering any questions regarding the evolving face of open access publishing.
ABOUT MARK PATTERSON:
In June 2011, three of the world’s leading research funding agencies -the Wellcome Trust, the Howard Hughes Medical Institute and the Max Planck Society - announced plans to launch a top-tier, open-access research journal covering the life and biomedical sciences. eLife was launched in December 2012. Mark Patterson started his career as a researcher in genetics before moving into scientific publishing in 1994 as the Editor of Trends in Genetics. After a few years at Nature, where
he was involved in the launch of the Nature Reviews Journals, he moved to PLOS in 2003. As the Director of Publishing, Mark helped to launch several of the PLOS Journals and was one of the founders of the Open Access Scholarly Publishers Association. Mark is also a member of the UK Open Access Implementation Group. In November 2011, Mark joined eLife and currently serves as the Executive Director.
Are we all clear now on where we're up to in terms of feedback on revisions responding to feedback on the inquiry into the policy change?
Here's the response from Lord Krebs and the House of Lords Science and Technology Committee to the RCUK revised policy on open access.
There's been no announcement, as far as I can tell, on when and if the RCUK will be responding to the feedback they'd requested. I assume it won't be before the first of April.
If I had a pound for each time I've heard that statement over the last week (actually the RCUK policy calls it a 'process'), I'd almost have enough for a Gold OA article in an Elsevier journal.
The LSE Impact of Social Science blog today contains a response to an earlier post about institutional repositories and their role in the transition to Open Access. It was almost like the authors today's post had listened to the conversations in our office over the last few days. I'm joking, of course they haven't but the points raised echoed our own response to Mike Taylor's post.
The scholarly communications landscape is evolving. Repositories are a part of the transition - without them, and (note this point) the expertise developed through their use and promotion, the Open Access movement would not be where it is today, which is at the forefront of discussions on publications and the sharing of research.
The irony is that we are all for Open Access, it's the journey that's under discussion.
Readers may be interested in this tool recently announced by the group that manages the Sherpa Romeo and Sherpa Juliet services - SHERPA Funders’ & Authors’ Compliance Tool (SHERPA FACT).
The recent announcement below:
"The Centre for Research Communications (CRC) is pleased to announce that Research Councils UK (RCUK) and the Wellcome Trust have provided seed funding for the development of a SHERPA Funders’ & Authors’ Compliance Tool (SHERPA FACT). SHERPA FACT will interpret data from SHERPA RoMEO, JULIET and other sources to provide clear guidance to RCUK and Wellcome Trust funded authors on compliance with their Open Access (OA) policies and advise on the options available.
SHERPA FACT will be available from 01 April 2013.
Further details and updates will be posted our blog (http://romeo.jiscinvolve.org/wp/)"
This article from Nature circulated the email list of a science department recently:
Predatory publishers are corrupting open access
The author of this article on predatory open access publishers is Jeffery Beall, Scholarly Initiatives Librarian at the University of Colorado Denver.
Unfortunately he has found a necessary niche. He maintains a list of publishers to watch out for, based on these criteria.
If authors receive emails soliciting publications, and are not sure about the publisher we'd like to know please, and help if we can. We have had instances of PhD students receiving invitations to have their theses published as books. This is potentially a great opportunity, and good for the ego/career, but a little investigation into the publisher's reputation (for any sort of publication, not just OA articles) has always been the sensible route.