JiscMail Logo
Email discussion lists for the UK Education and Research communities

Help for LIS-ELIB Archives


LIS-ELIB Archives

LIS-ELIB Archives


LIS-ELIB@JISCMAIL.AC.UK


View:

Message:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

By Topic:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

By Author:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

Font:

Proportional Font

LISTSERV Archives

LISTSERV Archives

LIS-ELIB Home

LIS-ELIB Home

LIS-ELIB  January 2008

LIS-ELIB January 2008

Options

Subscribe or Unsubscribe

Subscribe or Unsubscribe

Log In

Log In

Get Password

Get Password

Subject:

European University Association Open Access Recommendations

From:

Stevan Harnad <[log in to unmask]>

Reply-To:

Stevan Harnad <[log in to unmask]>

Date:

Sun, 27 Jan 2008 02:19:28 +0000

Content-Type:

MULTIPART/MIXED

Parts/Attachments:

Parts/Attachments

TEXT/PLAIN (227 lines)

              [Apologies for Multiple Posting]

These recommendations by the EUA Working Group on Open Access were
adopted unanimously by the Council of the European University
Association on January 25 2008.

Many thanks to Professor Bernard Rentier, Rector, University of Liege
and founder of EurOpenScholar, who has forwarded them to the American
Scientist Open Access Forum for posting, with permission.

Below are the highlights of the recommendations, followed by the
recommendations in full. The recommendation is that all European
Universities should create institutional repositories and should mandate
that all research publications must be deposited in them immediately upon
publication (and made Open Access as soon as possible thereafter), as
already mandated by RCUK, ERC, and NIH, and as recommended by EURAB. EUA
also recommends that this self-archiving mandate should be extended to
all research results arising from EU research programme/project funding.

HIGHLIGHTS:

A. Recommendations for University Leadership

     The basic approach... should be the creation of an institutional
     repository. These repositories should be established and managed
     according to current best practices (following recommendations
     and guidelines from DRIVER and similar projects) complying with the
     OAI-PMH protocol and allowing inter-operability and future networking
     for wider usage....

     University institutional policies should require that their
     researchers deposit (self-archive) their scientific publications
     in their institutional repository upon acceptance for publication.
     Permissible embargoes should apply only to the date of open access
     provision and not the date of deposit. Such policies would be in
     compliance with evolving policies of research funding agencies at
     the national and European level such as the ERC.

B. Recommendations for National Rectors' Conferences

     All National Rectors' Conferences should work with national research
     funding agencies and governments in their countries to implement
     the requirement for self-archiving of research publications
     in institutional repositories and other appropriate open access
     repositories according to best practice models of the ERC and existing
     national research funding agencies operating open access mandates...

C. Recommendations for the European University Association

     EUA should continue to contribute actively to the policy dialogue on
     Open Access at the European level with a view to a self-archiving
     mandate for all research results arising from EU research
     programme/project funding, hence in support of and building upon
     the ERC position and other international initiatives such as that
     of the US National Institutes of Health (NIH).

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

Recommendations from the European University Association Working Group 
on Open Access

I. WG: Aims and Scope

In January 2007 EUA established a 'Working Group on Open Access' for a
one year period as a platform of expert opinion to provide both a voice
for, and visibility to European universities as stakeholders in the
policy debate. Its mission was dual-fold: to raise awareness of the
importance of 'open access' issues to the wider university community,
both in terms of its impact upon the research process and its financial
implications for university libraries, and to develop recommendations
for a common strategy for the university sector as key stakeholders in
policy development in the field. The decision to set up the Working
Group had reflected the general view that the interests of universities
were not being heard in the growing policy debate on the issue of the
wide implications of rapid development of digital ICT for publishing
which tended to be dominated by the commercial interests of the major
scientific publishing companies.

The Working Group membership drew upon the range of different university
perspectives on the concept of 'Open Access' from those of academic
researchers, librarians and university management. In the course of its
three meetings in 2007 the Working Group gathered expert opinion on open
access publishing business models, legal and copyright issues, technical
development of national digital repositories and their European
networking, and the policies being developed towards open access
publishing by funding agencies at the national level and the European
Commission.

Professor Sijbolt Noorda (Chair of the WG) and members contributed also
to several European Conferences held in 2007 including the major
conference on 'Scientific Publishing in the Digital Age' held jointly by
the European Commission DG Research and DG Information and Media in
Brussels in February 2007 in which the university sector were recognised
formally as a major 'stakeholder' in the open access policy debate.

In reaching its recommendations that are addressed to three audiences -
university leaders at the institutional level,  National Rectors
Conferences and the EUA - the Working Group has borne in mind the full
spectrum of issues involved; these range from the clear opportunity
offered to widen access to the results of research, to the implications
of open access publishing for peer review and quality assurance in
academic research and the rapidly rising costs of scientific
publications for university libraries (through high subscription prices
for both electronic and printed journals, including 'bundling' marketing
strategies by publishers).

II. European and Global Context of the Recommendations

The WG recommendations seek to build upon the findings of the 'Study on
the Economic and Technical Evolution of Scientific Publications Markets
in Europe' (European Commission, DG Research, project report, January
2006), and public statements issued by the European Research Council
(ERC) and the European Research Advisory Board (EURAB) on Open Access as
well as the current practices of some funding agencies such as UK
Research Councils and the newly adopted policy of the National
Institutes of Health (NIH) in the United States concerning open access
mandates for peer-reviewed publications arising from grants.

In the European context the most recent significant development has been
the ERC announcement on 17th December 2007 of its position on open
access, as follows:

 	"The ERC requires that all peer-reviewed publications from
 	ERC-funded research projects be deposited on publication
 	into an appropriate research repository where available, such
 	as PubMedCentral, ArXiv or an institutional repository, and
 	subsequently made Open Access within 6 months of publication."

WG recommendations seek also to provide support to European level
initiatives promoting institutional repositories, their networking and
wider accessibility through the future Confederation of European
Repositories being developed by the DRIVER project consortium (funded
under the European Commission 7th Research Framework Programme) and
other university-led initiatives such as EurOpenScholar and the UNICA
network.

III. Recommendations

The WG recommendations (below) are based upon the following core
premises: the university's role and responsibility as guardian of
research knowledge as a 'public good'; the results of publicly-funded
research should be publicly-available as soon as possible; and quality
assurance peer review processes are pre-conditions for scholarly
publishing and therefore are essential to be maintained in the digital
publishing mode.

It is important to emphasise that the scope of the WG recommendations
cover as a priority the need for the enhancement of open access to
peer-reviewed published research literature only, and not scientific
research data, teaching materials etc. Issues of access to research
data, its archiving and preservation need further attention from
universities, funding agencies and scientific professional bodies, and
are subject to several initiatives at the national and European level
which are not addressed here (e.g. the Alliance for Permanent Access and
European Digital Information Infrastructure).

A. Recommendations for University Leadership

 	1.	Universities should develop institutional policies and
strategies that foster the availability of their quality controlled
research results for the broadest possible range of users, maximising
their visibility, accessibility and scientific impact.

 	2.	The basic approach for achieving this should be the creation of
an institutional repository. These repositories should be established
and managed according to current best practices (following
recommendations and guidelines from DRIVER and similar projects)
complying with the OAI-PMH protocol and allowing inter-operability and
future networking for wider usage.

 	3.	University institutional policies should require that their
researchers deposit (self-archive) their scientific publications in
their institutional repository upon acceptance for publication.
Permissible embargoes should apply only to the date of open access
provision and not the date of deposit. Such policies would be in
compliance with evolving policies of research funding agencies at the
national and European level such as the ERC.

 	4.	University policies should include copyright in the
institutional intellectual property rights (IPR) management. It should
be the responsibility of the university to inform their faculty
researchers about IPR and copyright management in order to ensure the
wider sharing and re-use of the digital research content they have
produced. This should include a clear policy on ownership and management
of copyright covering scholarly publications and define procedures for
ensuring that the institution has the right to use the material produced
by its staff for further research, educational and instructional
purposes.

 	5.	University institutional policies should explore also how own
resources could be found for author fees if 'author pays model' of open
access publishing prevails in the future in some scientific
fields/domains.

B. Recommendations for National Rectors' Conferences

 	1.	All National Rectors' Conferences should work with national
research funding agencies and governments in their countries to
implement the requirement for self-archiving of research publications in
institutional repositories and other appropriate open access
repositories according to best practice models of the ERC and existing
national research funding agencies operating open access mandates.
National Rectors' Conferences should encourage government to work within
the framework of the Council of the European Union Conclusions on
Scientific Information in the Digital Age: Access, Dissemination and
Preservation" adopted at the EU Competitiveness Council meeting on
22nd-23rd November 2007.

 	2.	National Rectors' Conferences should attach high priority to
raising the awareness of university leadership to the importance of open
access policies in terms of enhanced visibility, access and impact of
their research results.

C. Recommendations for the European University Association

 	1.	EUA should continue to contribute actively to the policy
dialogue on Open Access at the European level with a view to a
self-archiving mandate for all research results arising from EU research
programme/project funding, hence in support of and building upon the ERC
position and other international initiatives such as that of the US
National Institutes of Health (NIH).

 	2.	EUA should continue to be visible and to rally expertise from
Europe's universities on Open Access issues to provide input to European
and International events advancing open access to scientific
publications, research data and their preservation.

Top of Message | Previous Page | Permalink

JiscMail Tools


RSS Feeds and Sharing


Advanced Options


Archives

May 2024
April 2024
January 2024
December 2023
October 2023
September 2023
August 2023
July 2023
June 2023
May 2023
February 2023
January 2023
December 2022
February 2022
December 2021
October 2021
September 2021
August 2021
May 2021
September 2020
October 2019
March 2019
February 2019
August 2018
February 2018
December 2017
October 2017
September 2017
August 2017
June 2017
April 2017
March 2017
February 2017
January 2017
November 2016
August 2016
July 2016
May 2016
April 2016
March 2016
February 2016
January 2016
December 2015
November 2015
October 2015
September 2015
August 2015
July 2015
June 2015
May 2015
April 2015
March 2015
February 2015
September 2014
June 2014
May 2014
April 2014
March 2014
February 2014
January 2014
December 2013
November 2013
October 2013
September 2013
August 2013
July 2013
June 2013
May 2013
April 2013
March 2013
February 2013
January 2013
December 2012
November 2012
October 2012
September 2012
August 2012
July 2012
June 2012
May 2012
April 2012
March 2012
February 2012
January 2012
December 2011
November 2011
October 2011
September 2011
August 2011
July 2011
June 2011
May 2011
April 2011
March 2011
February 2011
January 2011
December 2010
November 2010
October 2010
September 2010
August 2010
July 2010
June 2010
May 2010
April 2010
March 2010
February 2010
January 2010
December 2009
November 2009
October 2009
September 2009
August 2009
July 2009
June 2009
May 2009
April 2009
March 2009
February 2009
January 2009
December 2008
November 2008
October 2008
September 2008
August 2008
July 2008
June 2008
May 2008
April 2008
March 2008
February 2008
January 2008
December 2007
November 2007
October 2007
September 2007
August 2007
July 2007
June 2007
May 2007
April 2007
March 2007
February 2007
January 2007
December 2006
November 2006
October 2006
September 2006
August 2006
July 2006
June 2006
May 2006
April 2006
March 2006
February 2006
January 2006
December 2005
November 2005
October 2005
September 2005
August 2005
July 2005
June 2005
May 2005
April 2005
March 2005
February 2005
January 2005
December 2004
November 2004
October 2004
September 2004
August 2004
July 2004
June 2004
May 2004
April 2004
March 2004
February 2004
January 2004
December 2003
November 2003
October 2003
September 2003
August 2003
July 2003
June 2003
May 2003
April 2003
March 2003
February 2003
January 2003
December 2002
November 2002
October 2002
September 2002
August 2002
July 2002
June 2002
May 2002
April 2002
March 2002
February 2002
January 2002
December 2001
November 2001
October 2001
September 2001
August 2001
July 2001
June 2001
May 2001
April 2001
March 2001
February 2001
January 2001
December 2000
November 2000
October 2000
September 2000
August 2000
July 2000
June 2000
May 2000
April 2000
March 2000
February 2000
January 2000
December 1999
November 1999
October 1999
September 1999
August 1999
July 1999
June 1999
May 1999
April 1999
March 1999
February 1999
January 1999
December 1998
November 1998
October 1998
September 1998
August 1998
July 1998
June 1998
May 1998
April 1998
March 1998
February 1998
January 1998
December 1997
November 1997
October 1997
September 1997
August 1997
July 1997
June 1997
May 1997
April 1997
March 1997
February 1997
January 1997
December 1996
November 1996
October 1996
September 1996
August 1996
July 1996
June 1996
May 1996
April 1996
March 1996


JiscMail is a Jisc service.

View our service policies at https://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/policyandsecurity/ and Jisc's privacy policy at https://www.jisc.ac.uk/website/privacy-notice

For help and support help@jisc.ac.uk

Secured by F-Secure Anti-Virus CataList Email List Search Powered by the LISTSERV Email List Manager