Open Access & the RCUK

Day 2 of International Open Access Week, and today is a focus on new RCUK policy being introduced from April 2013.

I attended an event at Birkbeck, University of London yesterday, at which Ben Ryan from EPSRC spoke about the new RCUK Open Access Policy, and how this will work from April 2013.  Below is my interpretation of what he said, my understanding of the policy and my personal response to these changes.

Background
RCUK announced its new Open Access policy in July 2012, with some headline changes that affect every RCUK-funded researcher.  The main changes/additions were:

• Migration of funding for open access publishing from individual grants to PIs to a block grant awarded to institutions to be held in a central Publications Fund 
• Requirement that all research papers published via the paid model (Gold), be licensed under Creative Commons CC-BY (thereby allowing re-use, including for commercial purposes, text mining, etc.)
• Requirement that all research papers self-archived under the green route, be licensed under Creative Commons CC-BY-NC at the very least and be openly accessible no later than 6 months after publication (12 months for AHRC and ESRC-funded research papers in the short-term)
• Open access policy now applies to doctoral students funded through RCUK programmes
• A requirement that research data, generated as part of the project, be registered and accessible wherever possible

RCUK have had an open access policy, with variations on requirements between each council, for a number of years.  These changes are intended to streamline the policy across all councils thereby achieving a better and broader uptake of open access initiatives within the UK.  Much of the policy was written in tandem with the Finch report recommendations, and therefore expresses a preference for paid rather than self-archived open access routes.  Regardless of the response to Finch (don't get me started), and the focus on Gold (again, don't go there), the intention is still that a greater number of papers are openly accessible to all.  For RCUK, even taking into account their preference for gold, either route is acceptable, with the onus placed on authors and their institutions to make decisions as appropriate on a paper by paper basis.  Good luck managing all that workload (oh yes, that'll be my job...).

What does this mean for QM Library and Researchers, and other UK institutions?

So far agreement has been reached at QM that the Library will 'look after' the block grant, as well as the  Wellcome OA grant (more on this tomorrow), in addition to our allocation of OA credit with Royal Society of Chemistry, institutional memberships (PLoS) and those under consideration.  With this, and the need to communicate not only the changes coming into effect, but how this applies to researchers, and what services are available to support this, investment of time and staffing resource by the Library and Research Office will be required to engage with PIs and research project groups to find out what needs to be done.  To achieve this:

• Efforts to engage with PIs to raise awareness of the changes will need to be stepped up
• The setting up of a Publications Fund will need to be dealt with - a new thing for us - and communication to PIs about how to access it and when (see next point) arranged
• Correspondence between PIs and the Library will need to be set up to ensure that papers are known about at the point when they are being prepared for submission
• Better communication between the Library and PIs will be required to ensure authors know which titles in their discipline are compliant and they know who to ask if they are not sure
• We will need to consider how best to apportion block grants to funded projects (if apportioned at all)
• We will need to work with PIs and the Research Office during the grant application process to enable researchers to be data and OA compliant - and where to get help
• We will need to provide training and guidance for new researchers
• We will need to provide training for doctoral students  
• Better monitoring of uptake and compliance within institutions and by RCUK will need to be put in place, follow up where there is consistent failure to comply be scaled up, and mechanisms for managing monitoring be extended

Do the benefits really outweigh the effort and the complexities that this will introduce?

Yes.

Setting aside the above; the need for more transparency in the way that OA charges are calculated; the willingness of researchers to make time and invest effort to get on board and understand what is being asked of them; the need for publishers to accept that they are going to take a hit to their business models and profits; the fact that learned societies haven't been considered carefully enough; that this only applies to journal articles in peer reviewed titles (and there is a whole other publishing world out there to consider); and the serious risk of failing to comply on some level at some stage - even inadvertently, the ultimate aim of these and other changes is that more publicly-funded research output be free at the point of use.

OA advocates always knew that the path to full Libre Open Access would be a difficult one, and that there were an awful lot of people to be convinced.  However, open access is now on some of the most influential agendas, not just in the UK but globally, and whilst we might not fully agree with the methods being introduced, the pace at which change is occurring, or the way that this change is manifested in policy and governance, as long as we remain engaged with these authorities and identify, lobby and are vocal about where these failings arise, we still are in a better position than a decade ago, we just have more work to do.