Session 3 of OKHE, part of the PG Cert in HE at The University of Manchester. Course materials available openly at https://medium.com/open-knowledge-in-he Slides combined from several presentations. © The University of Manchester, external presenters as applicable unless otherwise specified.

1. Open Knowledge in Higher Education
PG Cert in HE
#okhe okhe
Facilitated by Simon Bains, Katy Woolfenden,
Sam Aston & Chris Millson
tinyurl.com/okhe16

2. Speakers for Wednesday 3 March 2016
Presenters
Steven Hill
Stephen Pinfield
Panel
Clive Agnew, Fiona Devine, Steven Hill, Steve
Pettifer, Stephen Pinfield, Martin Weller
tinyurl.com/okhe16

3. National OA policy
Steven Hill
Head of Research Policy
Library PGCert, Manchester
2 March 2016
@stevenhill

4. • The national policy landscape
• Finch Review/Government Policy
• Open access mandates
• Open data
• Open access requirements for future REF
• Future developments
Summary

5. • The national policy landscape
• Finch Review/Government Policy
• Open access mandates
• Open data
• Open access requirements for future REF
• Future developments
Summary

6. Image of Willetts: BIS

7. “The principle that the
results of research that has
been publicly funded
should be freely
accessible in the public
domain is a compelling
one, and fundamentally
unanswerable.”
Motivations for OA
Image: Public Domain

9. • Public-funded research should be freely available
• Long-term preference for ‘gold’ open access
• A mixed economy of ‘green’ and ‘gold’ OA is required in the
transition
UK OA policy framework

10. • RCUK
• Journal articles and conference proceedings
• Preference for ‘gold’ (inc. reuse permissions)
• Block grant funding for Article Processing Charges
• Embargo periods: 6/12 mo STEM, 12/24 mo AHSS
• Wellcome Trust/COAF
• Journal articles, conference proceedings and monographs
• Preference for ‘gold’ (inc. reuse permissions)
• Funding for Article Processing Charges
• Embargo periods: 6 month
• Higher Education Funding Bodies/REF
Funder mandates

12. • The national policy landscape
• Finch Review/Government Policy
• Open access mandates
• Open data
• Open access requirements for future REF
• Future developments
Summary

13. • Open research is
excellent research
• Mandates are
successful
• £1.6 billion
Open Access and the REF
http://www.hefce.ac.uk/rsrch/oa/Policy/

14. • Maximising the reach and impact of
research we fund
• Delivering a future that is ‘open by default’
• Not ‘distorting’ the system unilaterally and
ideologically…
• …but fixing some of the problems in the
system
Our aims

15. • Author engagement is essential
• We must set clear and straightforward rules
• We must be ambitious, but reasonable and
flexible
Our aims

16. • To be eligible for the next REF, journal
articles and conference papers accepted
after 1 April 2016 must be:
o Deposited in a repository as the peer-
reviewed manuscript (or better)
o Made accessible for read and
download after 12 months or 24
months
The minimum requirements
 Full policy: http://www.hefce.ac.uk/rsrch/oa/Policy/

17. • Exceptions apply where deposit not
possible / open access not possible etc
• Benefits of OA should be extended
beyond journals and conferences…
• …and in the long run include broad
reuse permissions
A few more details…
 Full policy: http://www.hefce.ac.uk/rsrch/oa/Policy/

18. • Implementation and monitoring
• Stability vs. harmony
• Ambition vs. realism
• Long-term trajectory for UK OA
Challenges

19. • Author engagement is possible, but is
challenging
• HEIs want systems in place to notify of
accepted papers
• We have granted flexibility in Y1 to
deal with this
• Will review this autumn
Pinch-point: deposit on acceptance

20. • The national policy landscape
• Finch Review/Government Policy
• Open access mandates
• Open data
• Open access requirements for future REF
• Future developments
Summary

21. • Monographs and long form outputs
• ‘Technical review’ of REF implementation
• Infrastructure developments:
• Publications router
• SHERPA REF
The Future

22. • The national policy landscape
• Finch Review/Government Policy
• Open access mandates
• Open data
• Open access requirements for future REF
• Future developments
Summary

23. Thank you for listening
s.hill@hefce.ac.uk
@stevenhill
openaccess@hefce.ac.uk

24. ‘Open’ Initiatives in
Higher Education Institutions:
Towards an Integrated Strategy
Stephen Pinfield, University of Sheffield
Work developed in collaboration with
Sheila Corrall, University of Pittsburgh
Originally based on work associated with the e-Infranet project, Report lead author
Lilian van der Vaart, SURF

25. The Argument
There is a strong ostensible case that the different ‘Open’
agendas...
Which have to date largely been pursued separately by
different communities of practice along parallel tracks…
Share a number of common characteristics and potential
benefits, which mean that…
A more coordinated approach to their development could
be useful within and beyond institutions…
And this would create benefits for institutions in particular
and the research community in general

26. Towards an Integrated Strategy
1. Background
2. Definitions, types and
models of ‘Open’
3. Fragmentation v.
Integration
4. Components of integrated
policy approaches
5. Discussion and questions
on next steps ©Jisc and Matt Lincoln
CC BY-NC-ND

27. Data Sources and Methods
• Review of related literature
– including published policy guidance and templates
• Qualitative survey of institutional policies
– limited to English-language information in public domain
– intended to inform instrument development for large-scale
international survey
• Policy analysis via 5W1H problem-solving method
– Why? What? When? Where? Who? How? questions used
as sensitizing framework (Patton, 2002, p. 278)

28. ‘Open’ Agendas: Background
• Open approaches are gathering
momentum
– bottom-up initiatives led by researchers, librarians,
educationalists, and technologists
– top-down drive by policy-makers and funders
• Influences and instantiations are
multifaceted
– social, technological, economic, political, etc.
• Multifarious movements at different
stages
– typically pursued within specialist communities
– relatively few efforts to think and work holistically
?
** *
* ** *** *

29. Definitions, Dimensions, Distinctions
• Interpretations of ‘Open’ vary between and within
different stakeholder and practitioner groups
– especially in the commercial arena (e.g. Open Standards)
and for emergent areas (e.g. Open Peer Review)
• Some transfer concepts/terms from existing practice
– Gratis and Libre “sub-species” of Open Access derived from
Open Source Software community (Suber, 2012)
• Others develop their own frameworks and meanings
– 4 Rs of Open Educational Resources: Reuse, Revise, Remix,
Redistribute (Wiley, 2010)
• Focus may be on content (product) and/or process
– e.g. OpenSource

30. Open: A Simple Overarching Definition
“Open means ensuring
that there is little or no
barrier to access for
anyone who can, or
wants to, contribute to a
particular development
or use its output.”
(e-Infranet, 2013, p. 12,
adapted from CETIS)

31. A Typology of Open
Open Type Open Domain
Open Content
Open access to research publications (OA)
Open data
Open educational resources (OER; including
Open CourseWare, OCW)
Open bibliography
Open source software (OSS)
Open Process
Open development
Open educational practices (OEP)
Open peer review
Open science/research
Open innovation
Open Infrastructure
Open standards
Open systems
(Corrall & Pinfield, 2014, p. 298)

32. Open Types and Aims
• Open content – making content of various sorts
freely accessible and available for reuse
e.g. publications, theses, dissertations, datasets, metadata, learning
objects, computer code
• Open process – carrying out academic or business
processes in the public arena
e.g. product/service innovation, software development, scientific work,
peer review, pedagogical practices
• Open infrastructure – creating an interoperable
technical environment for education and research
e.g. standards, systems

33. High-Level Open Typology
Open Infrastructure
Open
Content
Open
Process
Open Culture
(Corrall & Pinfield, 2014, p. 299)

34. Fragmentation vs. Integration
• Open domains at various
stages of evolution
– from ideas to maturity
• Promoted by diverse
communities of practice
– often with little or no
connection between them
• Initiatives managed at
different levels
– institutional/consortial,
national/international
• Open types have shared
theoretical foundation
– commitment, principles
• Open domains face
similar practical issues
– IPR, business models,
sustainability
• Institutions well placed
to exploit synergies
– operationally, tactically,
and strategically

35. Convergence and Coherence of
the ‘Opens’*
• Shared ethical commitment
• Shared “commitment to the unrestricted exchange of information and ideas”*
• Operate under common economic principles
• Efficacy
• non-subtractive, non-depletable, cumulative nature of information and non-
rivalrous nature of consumption of digital information objects
• Economy of recognition – ‘competitive sharing’
• Business / funding models
• Common characteristics
• De facto interconnectedness
Interacting with and
extending Willinsky’s
(2005)* analysis of
commonalities between
OA and OpenSource

36. Relationships and Culture
• Different open domains overlap, support each other,
and stimulate new forms of openness
– open research data building on open access to publications
and open source software
– open educational resources using open source systems
leading to shared pedagogies and peer learning
• Dependencies and synergies among open domains
indicate significance of coordination and culture
“Where ‘open content’ is used and produced
in ‘open processes’ within an open infrastructural setting,
a culture of ‘openness’ gradually emerges”
(e-InfraNet, 2013, p. 13)

37. Potential Shared Benefits
• Visibility and impact
• Reuse
• Innovation and agility
• Cost effectiveness
• Quality enhancement
• Reputation and trust
Based on e-Infranet
(2013);
Corrall & Pinfield
(2014);
and the work of
Jisc and SURF

38. An Evolving Model of Open
Open
Content
Open
Process
Open
Culture
Open
Infrastructure
Policy
interventions
Policy interventions
(Corrall & Pinfield, 2014, p. 301)

39. Policy Exemplars: Open Access
• Shieber & Suber (2015) – provides a regularly updated and detailed
overview of key issues
• The Enabling Open Scholarship initiative has provided online
guidance of good practice (EOS, n.d.)
• The European University Association’s checklist is one of the most
recent guides (EUA, 2015)
• The OASIS project has provided online guidance (OASIS, 2012)
• Harvard University Library, Office for Scholarly Communication:
model policy (Harvard University Library, 2013)
• The UNESCO report by Swan (2012) provides advice on forming a
policy (and does also mentions other ‘opens’ e.g. OER) and also
outlines a typology of policies
• Early ‘What? Where? When? Why? How?’ advice from Stevan
Harnad emphasising IRs (Harnad, 2006)

40. Policy Exemplars: Other Opens
• Open Data:
– Socrata guide to open data in general online (Socrata, n.d.)
– Sunlight Foundation guide (Sunlight Foundation, 2014)
• Open Educational Resources:
– Creative Commons OER registry (Creative Commons, n.d.)

41. Policy Considerations – Why?
• Policy rationale – institutional or other organisational
level
– Case for integration (as above)
– Common benefits (as above)
– Furthering the mission of the institution
o Academic impact
o Knowledge transfer / exchange
o Societal impact
• Incentives / Sanctions – motivations of different
stakeholders
– Especially the creation of incentives (and disincentives) for
academic staff

42. Policy Considerations – What?
• Scope
– Open content only? ‘Open
Knowledge’ policy
o Types – e.g. publications: articles,
chapters , books etc
– Plus other Opens? ‘Open Science’ or
‘Open Scholarship’ policy
– Version(s)
• Selection criteria
– An Open policy does not necessarily
mean all instances of a type are made
open, there is likely to be selectivity
o For immediate access
o For long-term preservation
o Exemptions, waivers (case-by-case,
category)
– Commercial confidentiality
– Sensitivity (e.g. personal data)
• Form
– File types – for access, preservation
o Proprietary
o Standards
o Accompanying files
– Metadata
Key question:
Single policy v. Policy
variation across the
Opens?

43. Policy Considerations – When?
• Timing of deposit and
release
• Embargoes
– Publisher
– Funder/Sponsor
• ‘Timed release’
– Period
– ‘On publication’

44. Policy Considerations – Where?
• Institutional repositories
– Repository infrastructure
• Third-party repositories
– Subject/disciplinary
– Community
• Publisher-based archiving
• Storage locus v. access route

45. Policy Considerations – Who?
• Stakeholders and their responsibilities
– Principal Investigator
– Author, creator
– Head of Department/School
– Support Services
o Library
o IT Services
o etc
• Governance processes
– Oversight
– Input
o Research committee
o Teaching and Learning committee
o Ethics committees
– Accountability

46. Policy Considerations – How?
• Degrees of openness
– Libre-Gratis spectrum
– Licence conditions (CC-?)
o Who owns the output?
o Rights retention/transfer
• Business processes,
support, infrastructure
• Policy ‘status’
– Aspirational
– Mandatory
– Variable
Typology of Open Access
Policies
1. Immediate deposit, no waiver
2. Rights-retention
a. Authors assign sufficient
rights to policymaker
b. Policymaker already holds
sufficient rights
3. Deposit within a certain
period
4. Deposit if/when publisher
permits
5. Voluntary
(Swan, 2012)

47. Policy Development Issues
• Authority and responsibility
• Funding and sustainability
• Quality assessment and control
• Timeliness and coverage
• Stakeholders and partnerships
• Inclusions and limits

48. The Argument
There is a strong ostensible case that the different ‘Open’
agendas...
Which have to date largely been pursued separately by
different communities of practice along parallel tracks…
Share a number of common characteristics and potential
benefits, which mean that…
A more coordinated approach to their development could
be useful within and beyond institutions…
And this would create benefits for institutions in particular
and the research community in general

49. References 1
• Boyer, E. L. (1990). Scholarship reconsidered: Priorities of the professoriate. San Francisco, CA: Jossey Bass.
Retrieved from http://www.umces.edu/sites/default/files/al/pdfs/BoyerScholarshipReconsidered.pdf
• Boyer, E. L. (1996). The scholarship of engagement. Journal of Public Service & Outreach, 1(1), 11-20.
Retrieved from http://openjournals.libs.uga.edu/index.php/jheoe/article/view/253/238
• Corrall, S., & Pinfield, S. (2014). Coherence of “open” initiatives in higher education and research: Framing
a policy agenda. In Proceedings of the iConference 2014. iSchools. doi:10.9776/14085
• Creative Commons. (n.d.). OER Policy Registry/Supporting Documents. Retrieved from
https://wiki.creativecommons.org/wiki/OER_Policy_Registry/Supporting_Documents
• e-InfraNet. (2013). e-InfraNet: “Open” as the default modus operandi for research and higher education.
Retrieved from http://e-infranet.eu/output/e-infranet-open-as-the-default-modus-operandi-for-research-
and-higher-education/
• EOS. (n.d.). Enabling open scholarship (EOS) - Formulating an institutional open access policy. Retrieved ,
from http://www.openscholarship.org/jcms/c_6217/en/formulating-an-institutional-open-access-policy
• EUA. (2015). EUA’s open access checklist for universities: A practical guide on implementation. Brussels:
European Universities Association. Retrieved June 14, 2015, from
http://www.eua.be/Libraries/Publications_homepage_list/Open_access_report_v3.sflb.ashx
• Harnad, S. (2006). Optimizing OA self-archiving mandates: What? Where? When? Why? How? Open
Access Archivangelism Blog. Retrieved , from http://openaccess.eprints.org/index.php?/archives/136-
Optimizing-OA-Self-Archiving-Mandates-What-Where-When-Why-How.html

50. References 2
• Harvard University Library. (2013). Model open access policy. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Library,
Office for Scholarly Communication. Retrieved from https://osc.hul.harvard.edu/modelpolicy
• OASIS. (2012). Developing an institutional open access policy. Open access scholarly information
sourcebook. Retrieved , from
http://www.openoasis.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=145&Itemid=298
• Patton, M. (2002). Qualitative research and evaluation methods (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
• Peters, M., & Roberts, P. (2012). The virtues of openness: Education, science, and scholarship in the digital
age. Boulder, CO: Paradigm Publishers.
• Shieber, S., & Suber, P. (2015). Good practices for university open-access policies. Cambridge, MA: Harvard
University. Retrieved from http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/hoap/Good_practices_for_university_open-
access_policies
• Socrata. (n.d.). Open data field guide. Washington, DC: Socrata. Retrieved from
http://www.socrata.com/open-data-field-guide/
• Suber, P. (2012). Open access. Boston, MA: MIT Press. Retrieved from
http://mitpress.mit.edu/books/open-access
• Sunlight Foundation. (2014). Open data policy guidelines. Washington, DC: Sunlight Foundation. Retrieved
from http://sunlightfoundation.com/opendataguidelines/
• Swan, A. (2012). Policy guidelines for the development and promotion of open access. Paris: UNESCO.
Retrieved from http://unesdoc.unesco.org/images/0021/002158/215863e.pdf
• Wiley, D. (2010). The open future: Openness as a catalyst for an educational transformation.EDUCAUSE
Review, 45(4), 14–20. Retrieved from http://net.educause.edu/ir/library/pdf/ERM1040.pdf
• Willinsky, J. (2005). The unacknowledged convergence of open source, open access, and open science.
First Monday, 10(8). http://doi.org/10.5210/fm.v10i8.1265