A workshop held in Brussels in November 2010 gathered around 20 invited national experts from EU Member States, with the aims of getting an understanding of Member States’ implementation of the 2007 Council Conclusions on scientific information in the digital age. This report documents the proceedings, sets them in the context of developments so far on open access and preservation at an international level and makes a set of recommendations for future EC action.
Choosing the Right CBSE School A Comprehensive Guide for Parents
Knowledge sharing: OA and preservation in Europe
1. Sharing knowledge:
open access
and preservation
in Europe
Conclusions of a strategic
workshop - Brussels,
25-26 November 2010
ReseaRch & InnovatIon
POLICY
2. EUROPEAN COMMISSION
Directorate-General for Research and Innovation
Directorate B – European Research Area
Unit B.6 – Ethics and gender
Contact: Francesco Fusaro
Office SDME 03/17
B-1049 Brussels
Tel. (32-2) 29-87458
Fax (32-2) 29-84694
E-mail: francesco.fusaro@ec.europa.eu
RTD-OPEN-ACCESS@ec.europa.eu
3. EUROPEAN COMMISSION
SHARING KNOWLEDGE:
OPEN ACCESS AND
PRESERVATION IN EUROPE
Conclusions of a strategic workshop
Brussels, 25-26 November 2010
REPORT
by
Alma Swan
(Rapporteur)
Prepared by:
Alma Swan, Enabling Open Scholarship
2 Denver Place
Elm Grove Road
Topsham
Devon
EX3 0EP
United Kingdom
+44 (0)1392 879702
a.swan@talk21.com
www.openscholarship.org
5. Contents
Executive Summary �������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������5
Section ONE: The workshop ����������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 9
1.1 The background to the Workshop...................................................................10
1.2 Aims and objectives ........................................................................................10
1.3 Representation at the Workshop ....................................................................10
1.4 Format of the Workshop ................................................................................. 11
1.5 Why national experts attended the Workshop ............................................... 11
1.6 The overall vision: why Open Access and preservation are important..........12
1.7 Progress in the Member States .....................................................................13
1.7.1. Open Access-related experiences of Member States ........................13
1.7.1.1. At institutional level.......................................................................................................... 13
1.7.1.2. At national level................................................................................................................ 13
1.7.2. Problems or bottlenecks encountered ................................................14
1.7.2.1. Lack of awareness and understanding amongst researchers..................14 .
1.7.2.2. Lack of awareness and understanding amongst policymakers...............14
1.7.2.3. Lack of policy...................................................................................................................14
1.7.2.4. Copyright............................................................................................................................15
1.7.2.5. Financial cost of implementation............................................................................15
1.7.2.6. Quality control..................................................................................................................15
1.7.3. The key success factors in overcoming these bottlenecks
and problems .......................................................................................15
1.7.3.1. Open Access policies .........................................................................15
1.7.3.2. Advocacy and cultural change work...................................................15
1.7.3.3. Infrastructural aspects of implementation ...........................................16
1.7.3.4. Funding ..............................................................................................16
1.7.3.5. Collaborative approaches ..................................................................16
1.7.4. The results, impacts and benefits .......................................................16
1.7.4.1. Policy development .............................................................................16
1.7.4.2. Culture change ...................................................................................16
1.7.4.3. Infrastructure ......................................................................................16
1.8 Suggestions for concrete actions ..................................................................17
1.8.1. Preservation of scientific information and experimental data ............17
1.8.2. How Open Access can make knowledge more
connected and accessible ..................................................................18
1.8.3. Publisher relations and negotiations .................................................18
1.8.4. Measuring Open Access outputs and collecting
evidence of the benefits of Open Access ...........................................19
1.8.5. National policies on Open Access ......................................................19
1.8.6. Making repositories user/researcher-friendly .....................................20
1.8.7. Open Access impact indicators as a replacement
for existing research bibliometric systems..........................................20
1.8.8. Linking European and national levels .................................................21
1.9 Priorities for the recommended actions .........................................................21
6. Section TWO: Discussion of the outcomes�����������������������������������������������������������23
2.1 Stakeholder engagement / involvement (advocacy).......................................25
2.2 Top-level engagement and support (policy development) ............................27
2.3 Collaborations and partnerships (coordination).............................................28
2.4 Implementation and manifestations (infrastructure) ......................................29
Section THREE: Recommendations���������������������������������������������������������35
3.1 Advocacy .........................................................................................................36
3.2 Policy ...............................................................................................................36
3.3 Rights ..............................................................................................................36
3.4 Infrastructure ...................................................................................................37
3.5 Business models .............................................................................................37
References���������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������38
Appendices �������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 41
APPENDIX ONE: Workshop participants �������������������������������������������������42
APPENDIX TWO: The format of the Workshop ��������������������������������������44
APPENDIX THREE: Open access – The European context �������������������45
APPENDIX FOUR: Questionnaire on national open access
and preservation policies �������������������������������������������������������������������������� 51
8. 6
SHARING KNOWLEDGE: OPEN ACCESS AND PRESERVATION IN EUROPE
AWorkshopwasheldinBrusselson25-26November2010,attendedbyaround20invited
nationalexpertsfromEUMemberStates,withtheaimsof:gettinganunderstanding
of Member States’ implementation of the 2007 Council Conclusions on scientific
informationinthedigitalage;sharingexperiencesandknow-howregardingsuccessful
implementationsandbestpractices;andcreatingacommonvisionofwhatcanbedone
nextintermsofpolicyandactionatMemberStateandatEuropeanlevels.
Thisreportdocumentstheproceedings,setstheminthecontextofdevelopments
sofaronOpenAccessandpreservationataninternationallevelandmakesasetof
recommendationsforfutureECaction.
OneissueaddressedwaswhyOpenAccessandpreservationareimportant.Theexperts
listedbothhigh-level,principle-basedreasonsandmorepragmaticones.Theformer
categoryincludedthemoralargumentthattheresultsofpublicly-fundedresearchshould
bepubliclyavailable,thatOpenAccessenablesresearchfindingstobesharedwiththe
widerpublic,helpingtocreateaknowledgesocietyacrossEuropecomposedofbetter-
informedcitizens,andthatOpenAccessenhancesknowledgetransfertosectorsthatcan
directlyusethatknowledgetoproducebettergoodsandservices.Themorepractice-
focusedreasonswerethatOpenAccessimprovesresearchefficiency,andenablesre-use
ofresearchoutputs,providesthebasisforbetterresearchmonitoringandevaluation.
PreservationofresearchoutputsensuresthattheculturalheritageofEuropeisprotected
andcuratedforfuturegenerationsandthatscientificoutputsarekeptinformatsthat
ensuretheyarepermanentlyusableandaccessible.
ParticipantsreportedonprogressonOpenAccessandpreservationintheindividual
MemberStates.AtinstitutionalleveltherehavebeenprojectsonOpenAccessinindividual
universities, progress on the development of CRIS (Current Research Information
Systems),andsomeprogressonpolicydiscussion.AtnationallevelOpenAccesshas
beenincorporatedintonationalstrategyforscienceandresearchinsomecountries.At
infrastructurallevel,nationalarchivesforOpenAccesscontent–ornationalharvesting
systems,presentingOpenAccessmaterialthroughnationalportals–havebeensetupin
someMemberStates.
Bottleneckshaveprimarilybeen:lackofawarenessandunderstandingofOpenAccess
amongstresearchersandpolicymakers;limitedpolicydevelopment;issuesaround
copyright(authorsoftenbelievethatmakingtheirworkOpenAccessinfringescopyright
andinsomeMemberStatescopyrightlawimpedesOpenAccess);misconceptionsamong
authorsaboutqualitycontrol,whichtheybelieveerroneouslytobeabsentfortheOpen
Accessliterature;andthefinancialcostofimplementationofOpenAccess.
Keysuccessfactorsinovercomingthesebottleneckshavebeen:goodpolicydevelopment
atinstitutionalandnationallevel;well-designedadvocacyandculture-changeworkat
authorandpolicymakerlevels;infrastructuraldevelopments;adequatefundingfor
infrastructuralandadvocacywork;andthedevelopmentofeffectivecollaborative
approachesinvolvingvariousstakeholderswhosharethemission.
The results and impacts of overcoming the bottlenecks and barriers are: policy
implementationatinstitutionalandnationallevel;culturechangeintermsofachieving
10. 8
SHARING KNOWLEDGE: OPEN ACCESS AND PRESERVATION IN EUROPE
Recommendation 5:Encourageandsupportinitiativesthataimtoincreaseawarenessand
understandingoftheissuesaroundOpenAccessandpreservationatpolicymakerlevels
Recommendation 6:Informandencourageauthorsandinstitutions(andfunderswhere
appropriate)toretaintherightsthatarenecessarytoprovideOpenAccessandenable
adequatepreservationofscientificoutputs
Recommendation 7:Enableasharedunderstandingacrossallstakeholders(researchers,
institutions,funders,librariesandpublishers)ofthelegalterminologyandconcepts
involved
Recommendation 8: Build upon the investment in OpenAIRE by further enabling
coordinateddevelopmentsthatjoinupemerginginfrastructurestomaximumeffect
Recommendation 9:ProvideEuropean-levelguidanceandleadershiptoMSonthe
principleofthelong-termnecessityandbenefitofaccesstoandpreservationofscientific
information
Recommendation 10:Examinethelong-termprospectsfortheinfrastructuralbasis
forOpenAccesssofardevelopedinEurope.Assessthisinthecontextofcreatinga
coordinated,viable,sustainablesystemthatwillenablethecreationoftheInnovation
Unionoverthenext15years
12. 10
SHARING KNOWLEDGE: OPEN ACCESS AND PRESERVATION IN EUROPE
1.1 The background to the Workshop
TheWorkshopwasconvenedtoexplorethestateofplayandprogresswithinMember
States(MS)withrespecttoOpenAccessto,andpreservationof,scientificresearch
outputs.BothhavebeenontheCommission’sagendaforsomeyears,beginningwiththe
studyintoscientificpublishingcarriedoutonbehalfoftheCommissionandpublishedin
2006(seebelowformoredetail).
Thetwothings–OpenAccessandpreservation–areseparatebutrelatedissues.Open
Accessisaboutfree-of-chargeaccessibilityofoutputs(researchtextsanddata)without
delayassoonastheyarereadyforpublication:preservationconcernsensuringthelong-
termstorage,careandcontinuingfreeaccessibilityoftheseoutputs.Thepresentpolicy
situationonthesetwothings,bothatEuropeanandatMemberStatelevel,hasarisenout
ofanumberofinitiativesandsteps,somecoordinatedandsomenot,sincethebeginning
ofthemillennium.ThiscontextislaidoutmorefullyinAppendix1.
1.2 Aims and objectives
Thehigh-levelaimsoftheWorkshopwere:
• togetanunderstandingofMemberStates’implementationofthe2007Council
Conclusionsonscientificinformationinthedigitalage
• toshareexperiencesandknow-howregardingsuccessfulimplementationsand
bestpractices
• tocreateacommonvisionofwhatcanbedonenextintermsofpolicyandaction
atMemberStateandatEuropeanlevels
• tosustainMemberStateinvolvementandcommitment
• toidentifyareasinwhichEuropean-level(EC-level)actionmakessenseandwould
bewelcome.
TheCommissionwouldliketodevelopconcrete policy recommendationsonhowtomove
forwardatMemberStateandEuropeanlevelonaccessandpreservationissuesandthe
Workshopwasconvenedtoinformthedevelopmentofthatpolicy.
1.3 Representation at the Workshop
Representationwasasbelow.
i)ExpertsfromMemberStates:
Austria,Belgium,CzechRepublic,Denmark,Estonia,France,Germany,Greece,Iceland,
Ireland,Italy,Latvia,Lithuania,Netherlands,Poland,Portugal,Slovakia,Slovenia,Spain,
Sweden,UnitedKingdom
ii)TheEuropeanCommission
• Jean-MichelBaer
• Jean-FrançoisDechamp
13. SECTION ONE: THE WORKSHOP 11
• FrancescoFusaro
• GillesLaroche
• MatthieuKleinschmager
• Alexis-MichelMugabushaka
• TheodorePapazoglou
• JuanPelegrin
• CarlosMoraisPires
• CelinaRamjoué
• LorenzaSaracco
• JarkkoSiren
• EcaterinaStamate
iii)Rapporteur:Alma Swan,EnablingOpenScholarshipandKeyPerspectivesLtd
1.4 Format of the Workshop
TheWorkshopemployedavarietyoftechniquestoensuredelegateparticipation.These
fellunderanoverallapproachcalledtheArt of Hosting and Convening Meaningful
Conversations(www.artofhosting.org).Thespecifictechniquesemployedatthisevent
aredescribedinAppendix2.
1.5 Why national experts attended the Workshop
TherewerefivemainreasonsgivenbythenationalexpertsforattendingtheWorkshop.
Theywere:
• TolearnaboutdevelopingpoliciesonOpenAccessandPreservation,andhowto
implementthem
• ToshareexperiencesoftryingtopromoteOpenAccess,includingonpolicy
developmentandimplementation
• ToexplorethepossibilityofcollaboratingwithotherstoachieveOpenAccess
• ToobtaininformationthatwillhelptoguideOpenAccessdevelopmentintheir
homestate
• ToencourageandhelpguideactionatEuropeanlevel
Thereweresomeother,lesscommonreasonsgiven,suchasbeinginterestedinOpen
Data, exploring business models for Open Access, and developing infrastructures
forpreservation.Ingeneral,though,participantshadcometolearnfromandshare
experiencesandwiththehopethattheeventmighthelpcatalysepartnershipand
networkingactivitiesandmovedevelopmentsalongatEuropeanlevel.
14. 12
SHARING KNOWLEDGE: OPEN ACCESS AND PRESERVATION IN EUROPE
1.6 he overall vision: why Open Access and preservation
T
are important
ThroughWorldCaféconversationsthenationalexpertsgavetheirpersonalviewsasto
whyOpenAccessandPreservationofscientificinformationareimportant.Thereasons
werecollectedattheendofthesessionandrelatedreasonsweregroupedtogether.
Overall,theyfellintotwocategories.
First,therewerethehigh-level,principle-basedreasons:
• Themoralargument,whichisthattheresultsofpublicly-fundedresearchshould
bepubliclyavailable
• OpenAccessenablesresearchfindingstobesharedwiththewiderpublic,helping
tocreateaknowledgesocietyacrossEuropecomposedofbetter-informedcitizens
• OpenAccessenhancesknowledgetransfertosectorsthatcandirectlyusethat
knowledgetoproducebettergoodsandservices.Manyconstituenciesoutsidethe
researchcommunityitselfcanmakeuseofresearchresults.Theseincludesmall
andmedium-sizedcompaniesthatdonothaveaccesstotheresearchthrough
companylibraries,organisationsofprofessional(legalpractices,familydoctor
practices,etc),theeducationsectorandsoforth
Secondthereweremoreprosaic,practice-focusedreasons:
• OpenAccessimprovesresearchefficiencybyobviatingtheneedforresearchersto
spendtimeseekingwaysofaccessinginformation,gettingpermissiontousethat
information,findingoutwhatpermissionsforre-useexistandsoon.Theyalso
finditeasiertoavoidduplicationofpreviousworkifitissimpletofindoutwhat
previousworkhasbeendone,andeasiertoavoidblindalleysifpreviousworkhas
shownthemtoexist.Allofthisismadepossiblebyhavingfreeandeasyaccess
tothewholeliteratureratherthantojustthesubsetofitavailablethroughthe
subscriptionspurchasedbyanyoneuniversitylibrary
• Re-useofresearchoutputsisimprovedbyOpenAccess(whosedefinitionincludes
there-useofresearchoutputswithoutrestrictionsimposedbyconventional
copyrightpractice).OpenAccessarticlescanbeharvestedbymachinesintonew,
usefulcollections,canbeminedformeaningorfactsbytext-miningcomputer
technologieswhichthencreatenewknowledge,andcanbeusedforteachingand
alliedpurposeswhichnormallyfallfoulofcopyrightrestrictions
• OpenAccessenablesbetterresearchmonitoringandevaluation.Insteadofa
systemwhereonlyaproportionofjournalsaretrackedforcitationstothepapers
theypublish,andaresearcher’sworthismeasuredbythe‘quality’ofthejournalin
whichtheypublish,OpenAccessenablescitationsandothermeasuresofimpact
fromacrossthewholeresearchliteraturetobetrackedtotheindividualarticleor
researcherratherthanthejournal.Eachinstitution’sOpenAccessrepository(digital
collectionofresearchoutputs)alsoenablesresearchmanagersatthatinstitution
toassessandstudyresearchprogresslocallyandcomparethattocompetitor
institutions
• ThedevelopmentoftechnologiestolinkOpenAccessrepositoriesandCurrent
ResearchInformationSystems(CRIS)inresearchinstitutionsbuildsuponthe
15. SECTION ONE: THE WORKSHOP 13
advantagesmentionedinthepreviouspoint.Untilnow,institutionalmanagers
havenotbeenabletosayhowmanypapershavebeenpublishedfromtheir
institution,wheretheyhavebeenpublished,whoauthoredthem,whatprojects
thoseauthorsworkedon,whatresearchgrantsthoseprojectshavebenefitedfrom,
whatequipmenthasbeenpurchasedfromthosegrants,andsoon.Nowallthis
informationcanbecollected,collatedandlinkedupinmeaningfulwaystoproduce
acompletemanagementinformationsystemforanyresearch-basedinstitution
• PreservationofresearchoutputsensuresthattheculturalheritageofEuropeis
protectedandcuratedforfuturegenerations;thatscientificoutputsarekeptin
formatsthatensuretheyarepermanentlyusableandaccessible
1.7 Progress in the Member States
National experts reported on developments in Member States since the Council
Conclusionswereissuedlatein2007.TheydidthisbyworkinginWorldCaféformat.
Onepersondescribedtheirexperienceswhiletheothersatthetablelistened,helpedthe
speakertobringoutthekeyissuesofthatexperience,andrecordedthemonpaper.Each
delegateinturndescribedtheirexperiencesinthisway.Thekeyissueswererecorded
finallyonsmallpiecesofpaperandthenationalexpertsarrangedtheseintogroupsof
relatedissuesunderthefourmainheadingquestions,whichwere:
• WhataretheOpenAccess-relatedexperiencesofyourMemberState?
• Whatproblemsorbottleneckswereencountered?
• Whatwerethekeysuccessfactorsinovercomingthesebottlenecksandproblems?
• Whatweretheresults,impactsandbenefits?
1.7.1. Open Access-related experiences of Member States
SomeMShavemadeconsiderableprogressonOpenAccess,whileothersareslowerto
initiatedevelopments.Thedevelopmentsthatwerereportedwere:
1.7.1.1. At institutional level: there have been projects instigated on Open Access
in individual universities, progress on the development of CRIS (Current Research
Information Systems; see section 2.4, penultimate bullet point), and some progress on
policydiscussion.
1.7.1.2. At national level: theargumentforOpenAccesshassuccessfullybeentakento
governmentlevelinsomeMSandinsomecaseshavebeenincorporatedintonational
strategyforscienceandresearch.OpenDatapolicyhasalsobeenimplementedinone
case. At infrastructural level, national archives for Open Access content have been set
up (for example, the national Open Access repository for theses in Greece), a national
CRIShascollected10%ofpublicationsinDenmark,andanationalOpenDatarepository
and a national portal for Open Access journals has been established. The most far-
reaching development has occurred in Portugal, with the establishment of the RCAAP
(RepositórioCientíficodeAcessoAbertodePortugal)whichharvestsOpenAccesscontent
fromPortugueseuniversityrepositoriesandpresentsthemthroughanationalinterface.
This is paralleled at disciplinary level by UKPMC (UK PubMed Central) which collects
16. 14
SHARING KNOWLEDGE: OPEN ACCESS AND PRESERVATION IN EUROPE
biomedicalresearchoutputsfromUKinstitutionsandpresentsthemthroughanOpen
Accessportal.
1.7.2. Problems or bottlenecks encountered
TwomainbottlenecksthatwerementionedbymanyMSrepresentatives–lackof
awarenessaboutOpenAccessonthepartofresearchersandpolicymakers,andlackof
policy.LackoffinancialsupportwasalsoraisedasabarriertoachievingOpenAccessand
properprovisionforpreservationofresearchfindings.Someotherissueswerealsoraised
andallarereportedbelow.
1.7.2.1. Lack of awareness and understanding amongst researchers: This is not
confined to European researchers. Surveys have repeatedly shown that researchers are
still not properly aware of the concept and that, even if they have some knowledge of
OpenAccess,thereisusuallysomelackofunderstandingoftheissues.Inparticular,the
issuesofqualitycontrol,theroleofrepositoriesandthematterofcopyrightareespecially
prominentasfactorsaboutwhichresearchersareconfusedanduninformed(seebelow
for more on these bottlenecks). Some researchers even appear to be resistant to the
ideaofopennessitself,thoughthisresistanceismoreusuallyapplicabletoresearchdata
thantoresearchpublications.TheresultisdemonstrableresistancetotheideaofOpen
Access,misunderstandingsandbaselessprejudiceagainstitwithinpartsoftheresearch
community.
1.7.2.2. Lack of awareness and understanding amongst policymakers: Policymakers
are, with notable exceptions, even more unaware than researchers about Open Access
and can often be uninformed about the issues around scientific communication in
general.Lackofawarenessandunderstandingisattherootofthegenerallackofpolicy
developmentatMSlevel(andatinstitutionallevel).Nationalexpertsreporteddifficulty
ingettinginterestandattentionfrompolicymakersonOpenAccessandrelatedissues.
1.7.2.3. Lack of policy: Some MS do have high-level policies on Open Access and
preservation.TheNetherlands,forexample,hasasysteminplacenationallyforpreserving
researchoutputsinthecustodianshipoftheRoyalLibrary(KB).MostMSdonothavesucha
system,thoughinsomecasesitisindevelopment(forexample,theBritishLibraryisworking
onanambitiousplanforpreservationofthenation’sscientificandculturalheritage).
Thereisapolicythatcovers20%ofFrameworkProgramme7(FP7)-fundedresearch
outputsandsomeMShavepoliciesinplaceatnationalresearchfunderlevel(some
examplesare:theAustrianResearchCouncil,theSwedishResearchCouncil,theseven
UKResearchCouncils),andthereisanOpenAccesspolicyfromtheEuropeanResearch
Council.Inthemain,though,thereislittleinthewayofpolicydevelopmentatMSlevel,
andnotmuchmoreatinstitutionallevel1.ThisisahindrancetotheadvanceofOpen
Accessbecausepoliciesservenotonlytosupportanimplementationprogramme,butalso
toinformresearchersaboutOpenAccess.Theyareexcellentadvocacytools.
1 S
eelistofextantpoliciesatROARMAP(RegistryofOpenAccessRepositoryMaterialArchivingPolicies)
http://www.eprints.org/openaccess/policysignup/
17. SECTION ONE: THE WORKSHOP 15
1.7.2.4. Copyright: Researchers who are not properly informed about Open Access
believe (erroneously) they will be infringing copyright if they self-archive their work
in repositories and do not believe that Open Access is compatible at all with scientific
publishing.NationalexpertsfromsomeMS(forexample,Germany)reportedthattheir
ownnationalcopyrightlawsdonotpermitOpenAccessbyself-archiving.
1.7.2.5. Financial cost of implementation: Therewasagreementamongstanumberof
participantsreportedthatthecostofimplementingOpenAccessandgoodpreservation
practicesintheirMSwasinhibitingtheadvanceofthesethings.
1.7.2.6. Quality control: Manyresearchers–andsomepolicymakers–whoarenotproperly
informedbelievethatOpenAccessisaboutpublishingmaterialwithoutpeerreview.Thisis
anerroneousbelief(asOpenAccessjournalsimplementpeerreviewasdotheirsubscription
counterparts,andrepositoriescollecttheauthor’sfinalversionofarticles,afterpeer-review)
butitremainsquiteprevalent.AuthorsthereforefrequentlyandincorrectlybelievethatOpen
Accesscontentequateswithlowerstatusthancontentpublishedinthe‘traditional’way.
1.7.3. The key success factors in overcoming these bottlenecks
and problems
Byfarthemost-mentionedkeysuccessfactorwasgettingapolicyonOpenAccessinplace.
Itforceschangeinawaythatadvocacyandexampledonot.Yetadvocacyhasitsplace,and
engagementofkeystakeholdersthroughadvocacyhasprovedtobeaveryeffectiveroute
toresearcherinvolvementandpolicymakingprogress,especiallywheretheexistingculture
andpracticescanbeusedtosupportOpenAccess.Othersuccessfactorsreportedwere
infrastructuraldevelopments,securingappropriatefundingandcollaborativeapproaches.
1.7.3.1. Open Access policies
ExpertsfromMSwherenational-levelorinstitutional-levelpolicieshavebeenadopted
reportedthattheyaresuccessfulinincreasingtheamountofmaterialopenlyavailableand
inraisingawarenessofOpenAccessamongstauthors.Policiesusuallyexplainthecasefor
OpenAccessandaresupportedbyclearguidancetoresearchersonhowtoprovideOpen
Accesstotheirwork.
1.7.3.2. Advocacy and cultural change work
Expertsreportedthatinvolvingkeystakeholders(authors,institutionalmanagers,national
researchpolicymakers)hasbeencriticallyimportantinadvancingOpenAccess.Successful
advocacyhasincludededucationandinformationcampaigns,usingbibliometricindicators
tomakethecaseforOpenAccess,promotingthevisibilityandusabilityofOpenAccess
materialandexplainingthereach(andsubsequentimpact)itcanhaveoutsideofthe
‘normal’researchcommunityaudience.
18. 16
SHARING KNOWLEDGE: OPEN ACCESS AND PRESERVATION IN EUROPE
1.7.3.3. Infrastructural aspects of implementation
Well-designedinfrastructuraldevelopmentscanenhanceOpenAccess.Somenational
expertsreportedthatintegratingrepositoriesonlocalandnationalbaseshadhelped
OpenAccessintheirMS.Portugalisagoodexampleofthis,withthebuildingofanational
harvestertriggeringactivityinabottom-upfashionatinstitutionalrepositorylevel.
1.7.3.4. Funding
FundingearmarkedforOpenAccessandpreservationdevelopmentscanbeimportant.
Bothinfrastructureandadvocacyrequiresomefinancialsupport.
1.7.3.5. Collaborative approaches
ThepartnershipcreatedbytheFP7projectOpenAIREwasmentionedasacontributory
factorinenhancingOpenAccessinonedelegate’scase.
1.7.4. The results, impacts and benefits
Theresults,impactsandbenefitsreportedbynationalexpertsfellintofourmaincategories
–policydevelopment,culturechange,establishmentofinfrastructureandtheamassingof
acorpusofOpenAccesscontent.Itwasnotable,however,thatfarfewernationalexperts
reportedanythinginthissessionthanforthebottlenecksandkeysuccessfactors.
1.7.4.1. Policy development
TwonationalexpertsreportednationalpoliciesonOpenAccessforthesesandone
reportedthesuccessfulcoordinationofOpenAccesspolicieswithintheircountry.
1.7.4.2. Culture change
Examplesofculturechangegivenwere:instigatinganOpenAccessawarenesscourse,
determiningthroughastudythat55%ofjournalarticlespublishedbyDanishresearchers
arepublishedin‘Green’journals(thatis,thepublisherallowsthemtobearchivedinOpen
Accessrepositories);andachievingsomesuccessinchangingthebehaviourandattitudes
ofresearcherstowardsOpenAccess.
1.7.4.3. Infrastructure
Infrastructuredevelopmentswereaboutestablishingnationalrepositorysystems,
includingthenationalharvestingrepositoriesinIrelandandPortugal.
19. SECTION ONE: THE WORKSHOP 17
1.8 Suggestions for concrete actions
TheseconddayoftheWorkshopbeganwithaProActionCafésessiontoreflectupon
whathadhappenedthusfarandforindividualstoidentifyparticulartopicsthatthey
consideredworthyofexploringtopromoteOpenAccessandpreservationinEurope.Eight
topicswereoffered:
• Preservationofscientificinformationandexperimentaldata
• HowOpenAccesscanmakeknowledgemoreconnectedandaccessible
• Publisherrelationsandnegotiations
• MeasuringOpenAccessoutputsandcreatingevidenceofthebenefitsofOpen
Access
• NationalpoliciesonOpenAccess
• Makingrepositoriesuser/researcher-friendly
• Openaccessimpactindicatorsasareplacementforexistingresearchbibliometric
systems
• LinkingEuropeanandnationallevels
ParticipantsusedtheWorldCaféformattodiscussthesetopics.Topicleadersremained
atatableandthreeotherpeoplejoinedthediscussionforaperiod,movingontoother
tablesattheendofeachperiod.Thetopicleadermadenotesofthekeyinsightsarising
inthesediscussionsandproducedashortoverviewdetailingthemainpointsthatarose,
whichtheypresentedtothewholegroup.Asummaryofthesemainpointsforeach
topicfollows:
1.8.1. Preservation of scientific information and experimental data
Technicalbottlenecksshouldnotbeallowedtohinderpreservationandpreservation
solutionsshouldbebasedonopensourcesoftware
• Optimalpreservationsolutionswillvaryaccordingtoresearchdiscipline
• ThereneedstobeaEuropeandimension(EuropeanStorageInfrastructure)tolink
nationalrepositoryinfrastructures
• AFederationofPreservationshouldbeestablishedonaEuropeanscaletoenable
nationalarchivestoworktogetherincommonaim,withmirrorsitesestablishedto
ensuresafecustodyofdata
Box 1:
Next steps on preservation of scientific information and experimental data
include:
• S
ettingupworkingpartieswithresearchersandusersofexperimentaldata
indifferentdisciplinestodefinestandards
• E
xplorationoftheissuesinvolvedinmigrationofdataovertimefromone
formattoanother
• D
evelopmentofguidelinesonwhatdatatopreserves,forhowlong,where
andhow
20. 18
SHARING KNOWLEDGE: OPEN ACCESS AND PRESERVATION IN EUROPE
1.8.2. How Open Access can make knowledge more connected and
accessible
Therearebothculturalandscientific/technicalissuesatstakehere.Culturalaspects
includelegalpracticeandincentivesforbothauthorsandpublisherstochangetheirown
practicesandnormstoembraceOpenAccess.Scientific/technicalissuesincludemetadata
standards,technologiesforextractionandautomaticcreationofmetadata,bettersearch
capabilities(using,forexample,naturallanguagequerying),andtheestablishmentof
infrastructureforrepresentingandpreservinglargevolumesofresearchdata.
Box 2:
Next steps on how Open Access can make knowledge more connected and
accessible:
• DevelopincentivesforresearcherstomaketheirworkOpenAccess
• Investigatestandardsforgood,cleanmetadata(includinglinkingtoother
datasets)
• Clarifylegalissuesrelatedtolinking,sharingandre-usingOpenAccess
content
• Educateallconstituenciesaboutthenewparadigmsofresearch
communication
1.8.3. Publisher relations and negotiations
Thereshouldbetransparencyoverpricenegotiationswithpublishers,withinformation
postedontheWeb.Thediscussionconcludedthatsomepublishersareinnovativeand
forward-looking,andthesecouldbenurturedandencouragedandpromotedwherever
possible.Alternative,viableandsustainablepublishingbusinessmodelsthatallowOpen
Accesscanbedeveloped,andtheseshouldbeexplored,especiallywithlearnedsocieties.
TherewasasuggestionforacommonEuropeanapproachinnegotiatingwithpublishers.
Box 3:
Next steps on publisher relations and negotiations include:
• Creatingawebsitedocumentingthestateofplayforeachpublisherwith
respecttoOpenAccess.Thisneedstobekeptuptodate
• Astudyshouldcollectinformationonnewbusinessmodelsforpublishers
• TheCommissionshouldorganiseaworkshoponrelationsanddealingswith
publishers
• T
hereshouldbenationalandEuropean-levelprojectsinassociationwith
innovativepublishersinordertopromotethesepublishersandtheirwork
• W
orkshouldbeginwithlearnedsocietypublishers
• D
GCompetitionshouldexaminewhethertheacademicpublishingindustry
isactuallyamonopolysituation
• A
lobbyisneededtopromoteOpenAccess
• A
commonEuropeanapproachisneededinnegotiationswithpublishers,
ratherthanthefragmentedinstitutionalornationalapproachesofthepresent
21. SECTION ONE: THE WORKSHOP 19
1.8.4. Measuring Open Access outputs and collecting evidence of the
benefits of Open Access
Thetraditionalacademicmeasureofimpacthasbeenthecitationofapieceofwork,but
therearemanyusersofresearchthatdon’tciteit,suchasprofessionals,practitioners
andbusinessusers.New,additionalmetricsareneededtomeasureandreflectthebigger
worthandutilityofresearch.Measuresthatcouldbeimportantare:
For researchers:mediacoverageandusagemetrics
For institutions:economicefficienciesofOpenAccess,usagemetrics,mediacoverage,
enhancementofinterdisciplinaryresearchbyOpenAccess
For governments and national research funders: usage metrics, media coverage,
compliancewithpolicies,enhancementofinterdisciplinaryresearchbyOpenAccess,cost
percitation,costperuse
For society at large:publicsurveys,citizeneducation,qualityofmediareporting
Box 4:
Next steps on Measuring Open Access outputs and creating evidence of the
benefits of Open Access include:
• E
xplorationofthescopeofindicatorsthatcouldbeusefultodifferent
constituencies
• S
copingstudytoprovideanoutlineofwhatworkisnecessarytodevelop
them
1.8.5. National policies on Open Access
Therewasnoagreeddecisionaboutwhethernationalpoliciesareneededornot.Some
peoplearguedthatabottom-upapproachismosteffective,butothersholdthata
nationalpolicyisessentialsothatatop-downinfluencehelpsthebottom-upinitiatives.
Theadvantageofanationalapproachisthatnationalauthoritiesareusuallyneededfor
involvementwithlegalissues,copyrightandinnegotiationswithpublishers.Withrespect
topreservation,anational-levelapproachishighlydesirabletopreserveculturalheritage
andtoputinplacepropersystemsforpreservingscientificresearchmaterialinthelong
term.
Box 5:
Next steps on National policies on Open Access include:
• C
onsiderationofwhethertheCommissionshouldissueguidelineson
developmentofnationalpolicies:thesewouldcoverbestpractice,practical
issues,samplecontracts
22. 20
SHARING KNOWLEDGE: OPEN ACCESS AND PRESERVATION IN EUROPE
1.8.6. Making repositories user/researcher-friendly
Atissueisthefactthatmostrepositoriesarehalf-emptyandoftenhavepoorquality
metadata.NationalCRISsarebeingbuiltwithOAIcompliance,whichshouldaddvalueto
thesesystems.
Box 6:
Next steps on making repositories user/researcher-friendly include:
• CreateamoreefficientbusinessmodelforlinkingrepositoriesandCRISs
Europe-wide
• Setstandardsonplatformsandinteroperability,withtheneedfor
researcherstodeposittheirarticlesonlyonce
1.8.7. Open Access impact indicators as a replacement for existing
research bibliometric systems
The most-used bibliometric indicator systems (e.g. Web of Science, Scopus) are
commercial,paid-forservicesthatarenotavailabletoallandwhichcreatedataonly
foraproportionoftheworld’sresearchliterature.Newcitationservicesworkingon
OpenAccesscontentwouldencourageresearcherstomaketheirworkOpenAccessand
convinceadministratorsthatOpenAccesscanbeusefulinresearchassessmentand
monitoring.
Box 7:
Next steps on Open Access impact indicators as a replacement for existing
research bibliometric systems include:
• Lookatthetechnicalchallengesthissuggestionpresents
• Explorethepossibilityofdigitalobjectidentifiers(DOIs)beingusedforall
digitalobjects,includingdatasetsandcomponentsofcomplexobjects
23. SECTION ONE: THE WORKSHOP 21
1.8.8. Linking European and national levels
TherearedefinedrelationshipsbetweentheCommission,theCouncilandMS,including
possibleresponsesofMStoCommissionguidelines.DoMSneedguidanceonOpenAccess
andpreservation?AttheleastthereisaneedtochangethinkingatMSlevel.
Box 8:
Next steps on linking European and national levels include:
• T
heCommissioncouldcoordinate,guideandname-and-shameinorderto
createacommonunderstandinganddriveprogress
• T
heCommissionshoulddevelopaformalOpenAccessplan
• O
napracticallevel,theCommissionshouldimposeOpenAccessasa
criterionforFPproposals
1.9 Priorities for the recommended actions
ThefinalsessionoftheWorkshopfocusedononequestion:What elements should be
part of an action plan for Open Access and preservation in Europe?Thenationalexperts
suggestedactionareasandthesewerecollectedonamindmap.
Nationalexpertswerethengivenfivevotestocastfortheactionareastheyconsideredof
greatestpriority.TheoutcomeisshowninTable1.
24. 22
SHARING KNOWLEDGE: OPEN ACCESS AND PRESERVATION IN EUROPE
Table 1: Assignment of priority by national experts for action points
developed in discussion
Votes cast
Action point
in favour
DevelopmentofstandardsforallaspectsofOpenAccess 13
Fundingforinfrastructuraldevelopments 12
CreationofnewmetricsforOpenAccesscontent(usagemeasures,successstories, 9
mediaimpact,citationimpact,etc)
Makingthe‘Green’routetoopenAccess(throughrepositories)mandatory 8
Exploration of copyright laws in EU states with a view to recommending 8
modificationorcreatinganewlawonacademicresearchoutputs(whicharenot
thesameasmusicandothercreativeoutputs)tosupportorpermitOpenAccess
Revisitagreementswithpublisherstoachievepricetransparency,re-negotiateBig 8
Dealsandimprovetheproportionofpublishersthatallow‘Green’self-archivingin
repositories
Investmentine-researchinfrastructuresinEurope,especiallythosethatsupportthe 8
developmentoftheOpenDataagenda
InvestmoreeffortindevelopmentoftechnologiesandenablersofOpenData 6
Supportforcoordinationactivitiestosupportadvocacyandothersupporting 5
actionsforOpenAccess
InvestigationofnewbusinessmodelsapplicabletoOpenAccess(includingusing 5
opensourcetechnologiesandafocusonaddingvalue)
Supportfurtherawareness-raisingactivities 5
Developmentofpoliciesatgovernment,funder,andinstitutionallevelacrossEurope 4
Developtechnicalinfrastructuretosupportpreservationofresearchoutputs 3
Developmentofincentivesforauthorsandpublisherstoincreasetheamountof 2
OpenAccesscontent
DevelopmentofindicatorstodemonstratethebenefitsofOpenAccess 1
Identificationofexistinginitiativesandbuildinguponthem 1
Fundworkondataandmetadatacurationforthelong-term 1
DevelopmentoftoolstosupportdepositandcurationofcontentinOpenAccess 0
collections
Encouragesharingofgoodpractices 0