SlideShare a Scribd company logo
2014/09/26, National Institute of Informatics, Japan 
The 2nd SPARC Japan Seminar 2014 "Institutional Open Access Policy : toward the development of Japanese models" 
Current Status of Open Access Policy 
Shinji Mine (Mie University) 
mine@human.mie-u.ac.jp, @openaccessjapan
Outline 
1. OA policy in scholarly communication 
2. Current Status of OA policy 
1. ROARMAP and Sherpa/Juliet 
2. University OA policy 
3. Government and Funder’s OA policy 
3. Summary
OA Policy:7 benefits (SPARC Europe 2014) 
1. Systematic contribution to the greater worldwide 
visibility 
2. Increase institution’s ranking position 
3. Faster innovative and economic growth 
4. Stimulate new research partnerships and project 
collaborations, research income 
5. Increase value of institution’s knowledge 
6. Increase the social impact and reputation of institution 
7. Demonstrate institutional commitment to OA and Open 
Science 
7 institutional benefits to implementing an Open Access policy. http://sparceurope.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/08/SPARCEurope-7OABenefits4ResearchOrgs.pdf
Open Access Policy 
• Policy 
• a course of principle and procedure adopted or 
proposed by a organization, or individual to solve 
problems 
• Goal, Target, Procedure 
• “Open Access” Policy 
• a course of principle and procedure adopted or 
proposed by a organization, or individual to solve 
Open Access-related problems
Stakeholders in OA policy 
• Researcher 
• University 
• Library 
• Government • Funder 
• Learned Society/Commercial Publisher 
• Public/Taxpayer
Library 
   Univ 
Researcher 
Commercial 
Publisher 
Learned 
Society 
Journals 
Reviewer 
Editorial 
Board 
Author Reader 
Production 
Editing 
Basic Model of Scholarly Communication 
Based on: Kurata, K, Scholarly Communication and Open Access(Gakujutsu-joho-ryutsuu to Open Access) .Keiso Shobo, 2007. p.71, Fig3.5 
Gov. 
Funder 
Provision 
Archiving 
Public 
Taxpayer
Source: ROARMAP: Registry of Open Access Repositories Mandatory Archiving Policies. http://roarmap.eprints.org/
120 
90 
60 
30 
0 
Funder 
Thesis 
Institutional 
*Institutional+multi-institutional+department 
2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 
Institutional 
Thesis 
Funder 
0 
Europe North America Asia Oceania South America Africa 
5 
8 
28 
4 
1 
6 
10 
34 
33 
42 
70 
43 
43 
153 
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 
Source: ROARMAP: Registry of Open Access Repositories Mandatory Archiving Policies. http://roarmap.eprints.org/view/type/
Africa 
South America 
Asia Oceania 
North America 
Europe 
Europe 
120 
90 
60 
30 
North America 
Asia Oceania 
South America 
Africa 
153 
70 
34 
10 
0 
Institutional Thesis Funder 
1 
4 
42 
43 
6 
5 
28 
33 
43 
8 
0 50 100 150 200 250 
0 
2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 
source: ROARMAP: Registry of Open Access Repositories Mandatory Archiving Policies. http://roarmap.eprints.org/view/type/
Funders by Country Funders by Publication Archiving Policy 
Others 
17% 
2% 
4% 
4% 
4% 
4% 
6% 
9% 
UK 
51% 
22% 
13% 
65% 
Canada 
Australia 
Sweden 
Ireland 
Denmark 
International 
USA 
Funders by Data Archiving Policy Funders by OA Publishing Policy 
45% 
22% 
33% 
24% 
64% 12% 
Required 
Required 
Required 
Encouraged 
Encouraged 
Encouraged 
No Policy 
No Policy 
No Policy 
Source: http://www.sherpa.ac.uk/juliet/stats.php?la=en&mode=simple
26% 32% 
52% 
1%6% 
9% 
7% 
33% 
34% 
Publishers’ Self-archiving Policy (RoMEO) 
RoMEO Statistics Statistics for the 1681 publishers in the RoMEO database. 
http://www.sherpa.ac.uk/romeo/statistics.php?la=en&fIDnum=|&mode=simple 
Postprint 
Publishers’ Self-archiving Policy (SCPJ) 
Society Copyright Policies in Japan. http://scpj.tulips.tsukuba.ac.jp/info/stat 
Not 
Supported 
Preprint Pre/Postprint 
Postprint 
Not 
Supported 
Pre/Postprint 
No policy 
Preprint
Commercial Publishers 
Societies 
All 
Allowed Not Permitted No formal support 
0 25 50 75 100 
Commercial Publishers 
Societies 
All 
Immediately 6-12 month 18-24 month Not permitted 
0 25 50 75 100 
Commercial Publishers 
Societies 
All 
Immediately 6-12 month 18-24 month Not permitted 
0 25 50 75 100 
Preprint 
Accepted 
manuscript 
Publisher 
version 
Laakso M. Green open access policies of scholarly journal publishers: a study of what, when, and where self-archiving is allowed. Scientometrics. 2014, 99(2), p.475–494.
University OA policy 
• Pioneers 
• Soton(2003), QUT(2003), Minho(2004) 
• Two major models 
• Liège model 
• No deposit No Tenure & Promotion 
• eg. appointments, promotions and budget allocations decisions 
• Harvard model 
• Faculties’ work:OA as the default 
• Faculty grants permission university
Immediate 
Deposit 
No Waiver 
Retention of Rights Deposit 
if/ when 
publisher 
permits 
Author → 
University 
University 
e.g Liege Harvard QUT Soton 
Mandates Y Y Y Y 
Immediate 
deposit 
Y Usually Usually N 
Embargo 
Y(Fulltext) 
immediate OA for 
metadata 
Usually 
← 
Usually 
← 
Y 
Deposit if/ when 
publisher permits 
Right 
Retention 
Optional Y Y N 
Waiver N Y Y N 
Source: Policy Guidelines FOR THE DEVELOPMENT AND PROMOTION OF OPEN ACCESS.
Gargouri Y, Hajjem C, Lariviere V, Gingras Y, et al. (2010) Self-Selected or Mandated, Open Access Increases Citation Impact for Higher Quality Research. PLoS ONE 5(10): e13636. 
1200! 
1000! 
800! 
600! 
400! 
200! 
0! 
100%! 
80%! 
60%! 
40%! 
20%! 
0%! 
2004D 
2012! 
2004! 
2005! 
2006! 
2007! 
2008! 
2009! 
2010! 
2011! 
2012! 
Public!Access! Restricted!Access! Not!Deposited! ISI!ArTcle!Count! 
Percentage!of!ArTcles! 
ISI!arTcles!in!2004D2012! 
3a# 
70! Public!60! 
50! 
40! 
30! 
20! 
10! 
Access!Delay! Restricted!Access!Delay! 
Average!Delay!(months)! 
1600! 
1400! 
1200! 
1000! 
800! 
600! 
400! 
200! 
0! 
100%! 
90%! 
80%! 
70%! 
60%! 
50%! 
40%! 
30%! 
20%! 
10%! 
0%! 
Public!Access! Restricted!Access!! Metadata!Only! Not!Deposited! ISI!ArTcle!Count! 
Figure 4. Comparing Deposit Rates. Percent Public Access deposits (PA), 
Restricted Access deposits (RA), Metadata Only and Not Deposited for the 
universities of Liège, Minho, Surrey (Mandated) and Lancaster (Non-Mandated) 
as well as the averages for 26 Mandated and 73 Non-Mandated UK repositories 
that were analyzed for publication year 2012 
!Percentage!of!ArTcles! 
ISI!ArTcles!in!2012! 
Gargouri Y, Lariviere V, Harnad, S. Ten-year Analysis of University of Minho Green OA Self-Archiving Mandate. Rodrigues, Eloy, Swan, Alma and Baptista, Ana Alice (eds.) Ten-year 
Anniversary of University of Minho RepositoriUM. http://eprints.soton.ac.uk/358882/
Government & Funder’s policy 
• Pioneers 
• WT,ERC,NIH,HHMI 
• Hot topics 
• UK:Finch Report / HEFCE REF2020 
• Green OA→Gold OA 
• OA as Pre-requisite for Research Assessment 
• USA:OSTP,FASTR,FIRST 
• OSTP 
• Fed agency w/ over $100M in annual conduct of research and 
development expenditures must develop a plan for public access 
• CHORUS & SHARE
UK・RCUK policy USA・Consolidated Appropriations Act, HR 3547 
A warenss of the Policy 
and Green Open Access 
Choose either Gold or Green Open Access for their funded research; 
choosing Gold, they must sign a Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) licence 
when publishing their article; 
choosing Green, they must deposit their article in a repository within a 
maximum of 12 months (STM) or 24 months (SSH) from publication; 
They should also disclose the location of underlying research data. 
summary of the policy has been created by Taylor & Francis for this purpose of 
survey. For complete and up to date information please follow the links below to 
the funder’s website. Please note that not all OA policies for United Kingdom are 
here. 
United Kingdom Research Councils UK Policy 
Introduction 
Policy type: Gold and Green Open Access 
What do funded 
researchers have to do? 
x Choose either Gold or Green Open Access for their funded research; 
x If choosing Gold, they must sign a Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) licence 
when publishing their article; 
x If choosing Green, they must deposit their article in a repository within a 
Are you aware of this Policy? 
[n = 882] 
maximum of 12 months (STM) or 24 months (SSH) from publication; 
x They should also disclose the location of underlying research data. 
Further information: This summary of the policy has been created by Taylor & Francis for this purpose of 
http://www.rcuk.ac.uk/research/openaccess/ 
z Yes 62% z No 38% 
https://beta.congress.gov/bill/113th-congress/house-bill/3547 
[n = 771] 
5 – I fully understand the policy 4 3 2 1 – I do not understand United States Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2014 
Introduction 
Policy type: Green Open Access 
Publishing work under this Policy 
What do funded 
researchers have to do? 
Awarenss of the Act 
Publishing work under this Act 
United States Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2014 
Introduction 
Policy type: Green Open Access 
What do funded 
They should ensure free public online access to a machine-readable version of either 
researchers have to do? 
the Author’s Accepted Manuscript version or the final published article within 12 
months of publication. 
Annex A: United States September 2014 Further information: This summary of the policy has been created by Taylor & Francis for this purpose of 
z Yes 14% z No 53% z Unsure 32% 
this survey. For complete and up to date information please follow the links below to 
visit the funder’s website. Please note that not all OA policies for United Kingdom are 
listed here. 
http://www.rcuk.ac.uk/research/openaccess/ 
Publishing work under this Policy 
How well do you understand this Policy? 
http://www.rcuk.ac.uk/research/openaccess/ 
Have you published work under 
this Policy previously? [n = 873] 
They should ensure free public online access to a machine-readable version of either 
the Author’s Accepted Manuscript version or the final published article within 12 
months of publication. 
this survey. For complete and up to date information please follow the links below to 
visit the funder’s website. Please note that not all OA policies for United States are 
listed here. See section 527 of this bill: 
https://beta.congress.gov/bill/113th-congress/house-bill/3547 
Will you publish work under this 
Policy in the future? [n = 872] 
Are you aware of this Act? 
Have you published work under 
Will you publish Further information: [n = 2,394] 
This summary of the policy has this been Act created previously? by Taylor [n & = Francis 2,409] 
for this purpose Act of 
in the future? z Yes 32% z No 68% 
z Yes 39% z No How well do you understand this Act? 
z Yes 42% z No 3% z Unsure 55% 
Awarenss of the Act 
Publishing work under this Policy 
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% 
Will you publish work under this 
Policy in the future? [n = 872] 
Are you aware of this Act? 
Have you published work under 
this Policy previously? [n = 873] 
z Yes 42% z No 3% z Unsure 55% 
z Yes 14% z No 53% z Unsure 32% 
Will you publish work under this 
Policy in the future? [n = 872] 
z Yes 42% z No 3% z Unsure 55% 
2014 Open Access Author Survey 
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% All US authors 
[n = 2396] 
Authors already 
aware of the Act 
23% 
Annex B: United Kingdom September 2014 8 
9% 
13% 
21% 
30% 
30% 
37% 
17% 
16% 
A warenss of the Policy 
All UK authors 
[n = 837 ] 
Authors already 
aware of the policy 
Have you published work under 
this Policy previously? [n = 873] 
Are you aware of this Policy? 
[n = 539 ] 
[n = 2,394] 
5 – I fully understand the policy 4 3 2 1 – I do not understand the policy 
z Yes 32% z No 68% 
this survey. For complete and up to date information please follow the links below to 
visit the funder’s website. Please note that not all OA policies for United States are 
listed here. See section 527 of this bill: 
https://beta.congress.gov/bill/113th-congress/house-bill/3547 
Publishing work under this Act 
11% 
18% 
Have you published work under 
this Act previously? [n = 2,409] 
z Yes 16% z No 40% z Unsure 44% 
z Yes 16% z No 40% z Unsure 44% 
20% 
32% 
30% 
Will you publish work under this 
Act in the future? [n = 2,408] 
z Yes 39% z No 4% z Unsure 57% 
How well do you understand this Act? 
z Yes 14% z No 53% z Unsure 32% 
z Yes 62% z No 38% 
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% 
2014 Open Access Author Survey 
17% 
36% 
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% 
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% 
11% 
18% 
20% 
32% 
30% 
17% 
36% 
22% 
12% 
23% 
20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% 
All US authors 
[n = 2396] 
Authors already 
aware of the Act 
[n = 771] 
5 – I fully understand the policy 4 3 2 1 – I do not understand the policy 
[n = 882] 
How well do you understand this Policy? 
23% 
Taylor & Francis Open Access Survey Open Access Mandates. http://www.tandfonline.com/page/openaccess/opensurvey/2014 
2014 Open Access Author Survey 
Annex B: United Kingdom September 2014 8 
9% 
13% 
21% 
30% 
30% 
37% 
17% 
16% 
All UK authors 
[n = 837 ] 
Authors already 
aware of the policy 
[n = 539 ] 
5 – I fully understand the policy 4 3 2 1 – I do not understand the policy 
2014 Open Access Author Survey 
17% 
22% 
Annex A: United States September 2014 8 
Awarenss of the Act 
Are you aware of this Act? 
[n = 2,394] 
z Yes 32% z No 68% 
Publishing work under this Act 
Have you published work under 
this Act previously? [n = 2,409] 
z Yes 16% z No 40% z Unsure 44% 
Will you publish work under this 
Act in the future? [n = 2,408] 
z Yes 39% z No 4% z Unsure 57% 
How well do you understand this Act? 
11% 
18% 
20% 
32% 
30% 
36% 
12% 
All US authors 
[n = 2396] 
Authors already 
aware of the Act 
[n = 771] 
5 – I fully understand the policy 4 3 2 1 – I do not understand the policy 
Policy? 
Research Councils UK Policy 
21% 
30% 
30% 
37% 
17% 
16% 
policy 4 3 2 1 – I do not understand the policy
10000 
7500 
5000 
2500 
0 
5-May 5-Oct 6-Mar 6-Aug 7-Jan 7-Jun 7-Nov 8-Apr 8-Sep 9-Feb 9-Jul 9-Dec 10-May 10-Oct 11-Mar 11-Aug 12-Jan 12-Jun 12-Nov 13-Apr 13-Sep 14-Feb 14-Jul 
500000 
375000 
250000 
125000 
0 
Legislation 
Mandates 
Total 
Monthly Aggregate Submission 
Source: NIHMS StatisticsMonthly Aggregate Submission Statistics. http://www.nihms.nih.gov/stats/
Japanese OA policy 
• Thesis 
• Okayama U.(2011, Mandate) 
• MEXT(2013, Mandate) 
• University 
• Hokkaido U.(2008, Strongly Recommended) 
• JAIST(2008,articles in Faculty DB, Deposit in principles) 
• Okayama U.(2011, Intramural Research, Mandates) 
• Nitech(2012, Articles, Deposit in principles) 
• Funder 
• JST(2013, Funded articles, Recommended)
Current Status of Open Access Policy
Form Mandate / Recommendation 
Content Journal Article/Proceedings/Monograph/Data/Metadata 
Locus IR / Subject Repository / Shared Repository 
Version Publisher’s PDF/Author Final Manuscript / Preprint 
Embargo Immediate deposit/Embargo/Embargo+Dark Deposit 
Waiver Y / N 
Right 
Retention University / Author(Faculty) 
Compliance Y / N 
Sanction Y / N 
Gold OA Y / N
Current status of OA policy 
• Region 
• Europe & North America take the lead 
• The rest of world: few funder policy 
• Japanese learned societies: lagging behind major pub/soc 
• Content 
• Journal articles+Research data 
• Type 
• Green OA + Gold OA 
• Monitoring & Sanction 
• Only a few funders(&institutions)
Summary 
•“OA policy implementation is a tough job”(Armbruster 2011) 
• Institution-specific culture & politics 
• requiring years of dedicated effort 
• Hita-hita and/or Mandate? 
• Failure of Policy 
• Implementation (U of Maryland),Post-implementation(NIH) 
• Sharing experiences (Good Practice, Bad Practice) 
• Monitoring compliance 
• Possibility after implementing OA policy 
• Difficulty in capturing the total number and OA rate of 
research results in a institution 
Armbruster C. Open access policy implementation: first results compared. Learned Publishing. 2011, 24(4), p.311–324.
Summary 
• Art & Science in OA policy implementation 
• Empirical/heuristic knowledge for implementing policy 
• Knowledge needed in the process and decision making 
• To make it happen 
• Objective evidence, Leadership, Assessment (Suber 2012) 
• Policy, Advocacy, Infrastructure 
• Policy’s goal, target, procedure 
•“Implementing policy is only open up the possibility” 
(Armbruster 2011) 
Suber, P. Open Access. MIT Press. 2012, 242p. 
Armbruster C. Open access policy implementation: first results compared. Learned Publishing. 2011, 24(4), p.311–324.

More Related Content

PDF
The Current Status of 
Open Access to Scholarship
in Japan
PDF
Future of open science in collaboration with society
PPTX
20160303_Brief Overview of OA and IRs in Japan_Purdue Mt
PPTX
Open access policy workshop
PPT
Open Access policies: An Overview. The OpenDOAR Policy Tool. Copyright man...
PPTX
Overview of open access progress globally
PPT
Ass Af Conference Presentation 02 July 2008.Doc
PPT
Eifl Open Access Presentation
The Current Status of 
Open Access to Scholarship
in Japan
Future of open science in collaboration with society
20160303_Brief Overview of OA and IRs in Japan_Purdue Mt
Open access policy workshop
Open Access policies: An Overview. The OpenDOAR Policy Tool. Copyright man...
Overview of open access progress globally
Ass Af Conference Presentation 02 July 2008.Doc
Eifl Open Access Presentation

What's hot (20)

PPTX
Open Access Progress and Promise in the CGIAR Consortium
PPTX
Why, how and by whom? A pro-active approach to open access in Africa
PPT
Open access publishing and open access data sharing for malaria research and ...
PPTX
PPTX
Library as publisher
PPTX
G:\CITERS2015\29May2015\2 Invited-Talk-2-Sidorko-Fred
PPTX
Open Access explained
PDF
Libraries Advocating for Open Access: Best Practices and Lessons Learnt
PPTX
Fifty shades of green and gold: open access to scholarly information
PPTX
Open access - where are we now and where to from here?
PPTX
Open access progress and sustainability
PDF
RLUK UK Survey of Academics 2012
PPT
New Models of Scholarship: Exploration & Engagement
PPT
Open access journals LIS
PPT
Opening access to DFID research
PPTX
Publish your work in Open Access!!
PPT
The Growing Call for Open Access - Heather Joseph (2007)
PPTX
Publishing in Open Access Journals – How DOAJ can help to avoid questionable ...
PPTX
Ada slide presentation rsc day_feb2017_v2
Open Access Progress and Promise in the CGIAR Consortium
Why, how and by whom? A pro-active approach to open access in Africa
Open access publishing and open access data sharing for malaria research and ...
Library as publisher
G:\CITERS2015\29May2015\2 Invited-Talk-2-Sidorko-Fred
Open Access explained
Libraries Advocating for Open Access: Best Practices and Lessons Learnt
Fifty shades of green and gold: open access to scholarly information
Open access - where are we now and where to from here?
Open access progress and sustainability
RLUK UK Survey of Academics 2012
New Models of Scholarship: Exploration & Engagement
Open access journals LIS
Opening access to DFID research
Publish your work in Open Access!!
The Growing Call for Open Access - Heather Joseph (2007)
Publishing in Open Access Journals – How DOAJ can help to avoid questionable ...
Ada slide presentation rsc day_feb2017_v2
Ad

Similar to Current Status of Open Access Policy (20)

PPT
OpenAccess policies as tools for innovative research and educational challenges.
PDF
Taylor & Francis: Open Access Update
PPTX
Open Access policies and best practices
PPT
Open Access policies: An Overview
PPTX
Important Characteristics of Efficient Open Access Policies, Nov 2014
PDF
Ec Open Access Pilot Ppt En
PPTX
Encouraging Openness and how stakeholder policies can support or block it!"
PPTX
Open access to scholarly communications
PDF
Open access policies: The role of research libraries
PPTX
Open access - Opening up of Scholarly Outputs for Public Good
PPTX
Open Science in Europe - policies and infrastructures: a user journey in Open...
PPTX
Open Science in Europe - policies and infrastructures: a user journey in Open...
PPT
Institutionalisation of an open access – a new possibility for research. A s...
PPTX
Publishing your research: Open Access (introduction & overview)
PPT
Open Access For Subject Specialist Librarians
PPTX
Open Access policies at Australian universities
PPTX
Frederick Friend: Where we are now in opening research results and data
PPTX
Open Access Why and How
PDF
The Good, the Bad and the Ugly. Open Access in the UK
OpenAccess policies as tools for innovative research and educational challenges.
Taylor & Francis: Open Access Update
Open Access policies and best practices
Open Access policies: An Overview
Important Characteristics of Efficient Open Access Policies, Nov 2014
Ec Open Access Pilot Ppt En
Encouraging Openness and how stakeholder policies can support or block it!"
Open access to scholarly communications
Open access policies: The role of research libraries
Open access - Opening up of Scholarly Outputs for Public Good
Open Science in Europe - policies and infrastructures: a user journey in Open...
Open Science in Europe - policies and infrastructures: a user journey in Open...
Institutionalisation of an open access – a new possibility for research. A s...
Publishing your research: Open Access (introduction & overview)
Open Access For Subject Specialist Librarians
Open Access policies at Australian universities
Frederick Friend: Where we are now in opening research results and data
Open Access Why and How
The Good, the Bad and the Ugly. Open Access in the UK
Ad

Recently uploaded (20)

PPTX
Comparative Structure of Integument in Vertebrates.pptx
PPTX
2. Earth - The Living Planet earth and life
PDF
The scientific heritage No 166 (166) (2025)
PDF
Mastering Bioreactors and Media Sterilization: A Complete Guide to Sterile Fe...
PPTX
7. General Toxicologyfor clinical phrmacy.pptx
PDF
VARICELLA VACCINATION: A POTENTIAL STRATEGY FOR PREVENTING MULTIPLE SCLEROSIS
PPTX
DRUG THERAPY FOR SHOCK gjjjgfhhhhh.pptx.
PDF
. Radiology Case Scenariosssssssssssssss
PDF
Placing the Near-Earth Object Impact Probability in Context
PPTX
INTRODUCTION TO EVS | Concept of sustainability
PPTX
GEN. BIO 1 - CELL TYPES & CELL MODIFICATIONS
PDF
HPLC-PPT.docx high performance liquid chromatography
PPTX
famous lake in india and its disturibution and importance
PDF
ELS_Q1_Module-11_Formation-of-Rock-Layers_v2.pdf
PPTX
The KM-GBF monitoring framework – status & key messages.pptx
PDF
CAPERS-LRD-z9:AGas-enshroudedLittleRedDotHostingaBroad-lineActive GalacticNuc...
PPTX
Derivatives of integument scales, beaks, horns,.pptx
DOCX
Viruses (History, structure and composition, classification, Bacteriophage Re...
PPT
protein biochemistry.ppt for university classes
PPTX
Protein & Amino Acid Structures Levels of protein structure (primary, seconda...
Comparative Structure of Integument in Vertebrates.pptx
2. Earth - The Living Planet earth and life
The scientific heritage No 166 (166) (2025)
Mastering Bioreactors and Media Sterilization: A Complete Guide to Sterile Fe...
7. General Toxicologyfor clinical phrmacy.pptx
VARICELLA VACCINATION: A POTENTIAL STRATEGY FOR PREVENTING MULTIPLE SCLEROSIS
DRUG THERAPY FOR SHOCK gjjjgfhhhhh.pptx.
. Radiology Case Scenariosssssssssssssss
Placing the Near-Earth Object Impact Probability in Context
INTRODUCTION TO EVS | Concept of sustainability
GEN. BIO 1 - CELL TYPES & CELL MODIFICATIONS
HPLC-PPT.docx high performance liquid chromatography
famous lake in india and its disturibution and importance
ELS_Q1_Module-11_Formation-of-Rock-Layers_v2.pdf
The KM-GBF monitoring framework – status & key messages.pptx
CAPERS-LRD-z9:AGas-enshroudedLittleRedDotHostingaBroad-lineActive GalacticNuc...
Derivatives of integument scales, beaks, horns,.pptx
Viruses (History, structure and composition, classification, Bacteriophage Re...
protein biochemistry.ppt for university classes
Protein & Amino Acid Structures Levels of protein structure (primary, seconda...

Current Status of Open Access Policy

  • 1. 2014/09/26, National Institute of Informatics, Japan The 2nd SPARC Japan Seminar 2014 "Institutional Open Access Policy : toward the development of Japanese models" Current Status of Open Access Policy Shinji Mine (Mie University) mine@human.mie-u.ac.jp, @openaccessjapan
  • 2. Outline 1. OA policy in scholarly communication 2. Current Status of OA policy 1. ROARMAP and Sherpa/Juliet 2. University OA policy 3. Government and Funder’s OA policy 3. Summary
  • 3. OA Policy:7 benefits (SPARC Europe 2014) 1. Systematic contribution to the greater worldwide visibility 2. Increase institution’s ranking position 3. Faster innovative and economic growth 4. Stimulate new research partnerships and project collaborations, research income 5. Increase value of institution’s knowledge 6. Increase the social impact and reputation of institution 7. Demonstrate institutional commitment to OA and Open Science 7 institutional benefits to implementing an Open Access policy. http://sparceurope.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/08/SPARCEurope-7OABenefits4ResearchOrgs.pdf
  • 4. Open Access Policy • Policy • a course of principle and procedure adopted or proposed by a organization, or individual to solve problems • Goal, Target, Procedure • “Open Access” Policy • a course of principle and procedure adopted or proposed by a organization, or individual to solve Open Access-related problems
  • 5. Stakeholders in OA policy • Researcher • University • Library • Government • Funder • Learned Society/Commercial Publisher • Public/Taxpayer
  • 6. Library    Univ Researcher Commercial Publisher Learned Society Journals Reviewer Editorial Board Author Reader Production Editing Basic Model of Scholarly Communication Based on: Kurata, K, Scholarly Communication and Open Access(Gakujutsu-joho-ryutsuu to Open Access) .Keiso Shobo, 2007. p.71, Fig3.5 Gov. Funder Provision Archiving Public Taxpayer
  • 7. Source: ROARMAP: Registry of Open Access Repositories Mandatory Archiving Policies. http://roarmap.eprints.org/
  • 8. 120 90 60 30 0 Funder Thesis Institutional *Institutional+multi-institutional+department 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 Institutional Thesis Funder 0 Europe North America Asia Oceania South America Africa 5 8 28 4 1 6 10 34 33 42 70 43 43 153 0 50 100 150 200 250 300 Source: ROARMAP: Registry of Open Access Repositories Mandatory Archiving Policies. http://roarmap.eprints.org/view/type/
  • 9. Africa South America Asia Oceania North America Europe Europe 120 90 60 30 North America Asia Oceania South America Africa 153 70 34 10 0 Institutional Thesis Funder 1 4 42 43 6 5 28 33 43 8 0 50 100 150 200 250 0 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 source: ROARMAP: Registry of Open Access Repositories Mandatory Archiving Policies. http://roarmap.eprints.org/view/type/
  • 10. Funders by Country Funders by Publication Archiving Policy Others 17% 2% 4% 4% 4% 4% 6% 9% UK 51% 22% 13% 65% Canada Australia Sweden Ireland Denmark International USA Funders by Data Archiving Policy Funders by OA Publishing Policy 45% 22% 33% 24% 64% 12% Required Required Required Encouraged Encouraged Encouraged No Policy No Policy No Policy Source: http://www.sherpa.ac.uk/juliet/stats.php?la=en&mode=simple
  • 11. 26% 32% 52% 1%6% 9% 7% 33% 34% Publishers’ Self-archiving Policy (RoMEO) RoMEO Statistics Statistics for the 1681 publishers in the RoMEO database. http://www.sherpa.ac.uk/romeo/statistics.php?la=en&fIDnum=|&mode=simple Postprint Publishers’ Self-archiving Policy (SCPJ) Society Copyright Policies in Japan. http://scpj.tulips.tsukuba.ac.jp/info/stat Not Supported Preprint Pre/Postprint Postprint Not Supported Pre/Postprint No policy Preprint
  • 12. Commercial Publishers Societies All Allowed Not Permitted No formal support 0 25 50 75 100 Commercial Publishers Societies All Immediately 6-12 month 18-24 month Not permitted 0 25 50 75 100 Commercial Publishers Societies All Immediately 6-12 month 18-24 month Not permitted 0 25 50 75 100 Preprint Accepted manuscript Publisher version Laakso M. Green open access policies of scholarly journal publishers: a study of what, when, and where self-archiving is allowed. Scientometrics. 2014, 99(2), p.475–494.
  • 13. University OA policy • Pioneers • Soton(2003), QUT(2003), Minho(2004) • Two major models • Liège model • No deposit No Tenure & Promotion • eg. appointments, promotions and budget allocations decisions • Harvard model • Faculties’ work:OA as the default • Faculty grants permission university
  • 14. Immediate Deposit No Waiver Retention of Rights Deposit if/ when publisher permits Author → University University e.g Liege Harvard QUT Soton Mandates Y Y Y Y Immediate deposit Y Usually Usually N Embargo Y(Fulltext) immediate OA for metadata Usually ← Usually ← Y Deposit if/ when publisher permits Right Retention Optional Y Y N Waiver N Y Y N Source: Policy Guidelines FOR THE DEVELOPMENT AND PROMOTION OF OPEN ACCESS.
  • 15. Gargouri Y, Hajjem C, Lariviere V, Gingras Y, et al. (2010) Self-Selected or Mandated, Open Access Increases Citation Impact for Higher Quality Research. PLoS ONE 5(10): e13636. 1200! 1000! 800! 600! 400! 200! 0! 100%! 80%! 60%! 40%! 20%! 0%! 2004D 2012! 2004! 2005! 2006! 2007! 2008! 2009! 2010! 2011! 2012! Public!Access! Restricted!Access! Not!Deposited! ISI!ArTcle!Count! Percentage!of!ArTcles! ISI!arTcles!in!2004D2012! 3a# 70! Public!60! 50! 40! 30! 20! 10! Access!Delay! Restricted!Access!Delay! Average!Delay!(months)! 1600! 1400! 1200! 1000! 800! 600! 400! 200! 0! 100%! 90%! 80%! 70%! 60%! 50%! 40%! 30%! 20%! 10%! 0%! Public!Access! Restricted!Access!! Metadata!Only! Not!Deposited! ISI!ArTcle!Count! Figure 4. Comparing Deposit Rates. Percent Public Access deposits (PA), Restricted Access deposits (RA), Metadata Only and Not Deposited for the universities of Liège, Minho, Surrey (Mandated) and Lancaster (Non-Mandated) as well as the averages for 26 Mandated and 73 Non-Mandated UK repositories that were analyzed for publication year 2012 !Percentage!of!ArTcles! ISI!ArTcles!in!2012! Gargouri Y, Lariviere V, Harnad, S. Ten-year Analysis of University of Minho Green OA Self-Archiving Mandate. Rodrigues, Eloy, Swan, Alma and Baptista, Ana Alice (eds.) Ten-year Anniversary of University of Minho RepositoriUM. http://eprints.soton.ac.uk/358882/
  • 16. Government & Funder’s policy • Pioneers • WT,ERC,NIH,HHMI • Hot topics • UK:Finch Report / HEFCE REF2020 • Green OA→Gold OA • OA as Pre-requisite for Research Assessment • USA:OSTP,FASTR,FIRST • OSTP • Fed agency w/ over $100M in annual conduct of research and development expenditures must develop a plan for public access • CHORUS & SHARE
  • 17. UK・RCUK policy USA・Consolidated Appropriations Act, HR 3547 A warenss of the Policy and Green Open Access Choose either Gold or Green Open Access for their funded research; choosing Gold, they must sign a Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) licence when publishing their article; choosing Green, they must deposit their article in a repository within a maximum of 12 months (STM) or 24 months (SSH) from publication; They should also disclose the location of underlying research data. summary of the policy has been created by Taylor & Francis for this purpose of survey. For complete and up to date information please follow the links below to the funder’s website. Please note that not all OA policies for United Kingdom are here. United Kingdom Research Councils UK Policy Introduction Policy type: Gold and Green Open Access What do funded researchers have to do? x Choose either Gold or Green Open Access for their funded research; x If choosing Gold, they must sign a Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) licence when publishing their article; x If choosing Green, they must deposit their article in a repository within a Are you aware of this Policy? [n = 882] maximum of 12 months (STM) or 24 months (SSH) from publication; x They should also disclose the location of underlying research data. Further information: This summary of the policy has been created by Taylor & Francis for this purpose of http://www.rcuk.ac.uk/research/openaccess/ z Yes 62% z No 38% https://beta.congress.gov/bill/113th-congress/house-bill/3547 [n = 771] 5 – I fully understand the policy 4 3 2 1 – I do not understand United States Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2014 Introduction Policy type: Green Open Access Publishing work under this Policy What do funded researchers have to do? Awarenss of the Act Publishing work under this Act United States Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2014 Introduction Policy type: Green Open Access What do funded They should ensure free public online access to a machine-readable version of either researchers have to do? the Author’s Accepted Manuscript version or the final published article within 12 months of publication. Annex A: United States September 2014 Further information: This summary of the policy has been created by Taylor & Francis for this purpose of z Yes 14% z No 53% z Unsure 32% this survey. For complete and up to date information please follow the links below to visit the funder’s website. Please note that not all OA policies for United Kingdom are listed here. http://www.rcuk.ac.uk/research/openaccess/ Publishing work under this Policy How well do you understand this Policy? http://www.rcuk.ac.uk/research/openaccess/ Have you published work under this Policy previously? [n = 873] They should ensure free public online access to a machine-readable version of either the Author’s Accepted Manuscript version or the final published article within 12 months of publication. this survey. For complete and up to date information please follow the links below to visit the funder’s website. Please note that not all OA policies for United States are listed here. See section 527 of this bill: https://beta.congress.gov/bill/113th-congress/house-bill/3547 Will you publish work under this Policy in the future? [n = 872] Are you aware of this Act? Have you published work under Will you publish Further information: [n = 2,394] This summary of the policy has this been Act created previously? by Taylor [n & = Francis 2,409] for this purpose Act of in the future? z Yes 32% z No 68% z Yes 39% z No How well do you understand this Act? z Yes 42% z No 3% z Unsure 55% Awarenss of the Act Publishing work under this Policy 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Will you publish work under this Policy in the future? [n = 872] Are you aware of this Act? Have you published work under this Policy previously? [n = 873] z Yes 42% z No 3% z Unsure 55% z Yes 14% z No 53% z Unsure 32% Will you publish work under this Policy in the future? [n = 872] z Yes 42% z No 3% z Unsure 55% 2014 Open Access Author Survey 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% All US authors [n = 2396] Authors already aware of the Act 23% Annex B: United Kingdom September 2014 8 9% 13% 21% 30% 30% 37% 17% 16% A warenss of the Policy All UK authors [n = 837 ] Authors already aware of the policy Have you published work under this Policy previously? [n = 873] Are you aware of this Policy? [n = 539 ] [n = 2,394] 5 – I fully understand the policy 4 3 2 1 – I do not understand the policy z Yes 32% z No 68% this survey. For complete and up to date information please follow the links below to visit the funder’s website. Please note that not all OA policies for United States are listed here. See section 527 of this bill: https://beta.congress.gov/bill/113th-congress/house-bill/3547 Publishing work under this Act 11% 18% Have you published work under this Act previously? [n = 2,409] z Yes 16% z No 40% z Unsure 44% z Yes 16% z No 40% z Unsure 44% 20% 32% 30% Will you publish work under this Act in the future? [n = 2,408] z Yes 39% z No 4% z Unsure 57% How well do you understand this Act? z Yes 14% z No 53% z Unsure 32% z Yes 62% z No 38% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% 2014 Open Access Author Survey 17% 36% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% 11% 18% 20% 32% 30% 17% 36% 22% 12% 23% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% All US authors [n = 2396] Authors already aware of the Act [n = 771] 5 – I fully understand the policy 4 3 2 1 – I do not understand the policy [n = 882] How well do you understand this Policy? 23% Taylor & Francis Open Access Survey Open Access Mandates. http://www.tandfonline.com/page/openaccess/opensurvey/2014 2014 Open Access Author Survey Annex B: United Kingdom September 2014 8 9% 13% 21% 30% 30% 37% 17% 16% All UK authors [n = 837 ] Authors already aware of the policy [n = 539 ] 5 – I fully understand the policy 4 3 2 1 – I do not understand the policy 2014 Open Access Author Survey 17% 22% Annex A: United States September 2014 8 Awarenss of the Act Are you aware of this Act? [n = 2,394] z Yes 32% z No 68% Publishing work under this Act Have you published work under this Act previously? [n = 2,409] z Yes 16% z No 40% z Unsure 44% Will you publish work under this Act in the future? [n = 2,408] z Yes 39% z No 4% z Unsure 57% How well do you understand this Act? 11% 18% 20% 32% 30% 36% 12% All US authors [n = 2396] Authors already aware of the Act [n = 771] 5 – I fully understand the policy 4 3 2 1 – I do not understand the policy Policy? Research Councils UK Policy 21% 30% 30% 37% 17% 16% policy 4 3 2 1 – I do not understand the policy
  • 18. 10000 7500 5000 2500 0 5-May 5-Oct 6-Mar 6-Aug 7-Jan 7-Jun 7-Nov 8-Apr 8-Sep 9-Feb 9-Jul 9-Dec 10-May 10-Oct 11-Mar 11-Aug 12-Jan 12-Jun 12-Nov 13-Apr 13-Sep 14-Feb 14-Jul 500000 375000 250000 125000 0 Legislation Mandates Total Monthly Aggregate Submission Source: NIHMS StatisticsMonthly Aggregate Submission Statistics. http://www.nihms.nih.gov/stats/
  • 19. Japanese OA policy • Thesis • Okayama U.(2011, Mandate) • MEXT(2013, Mandate) • University • Hokkaido U.(2008, Strongly Recommended) • JAIST(2008,articles in Faculty DB, Deposit in principles) • Okayama U.(2011, Intramural Research, Mandates) • Nitech(2012, Articles, Deposit in principles) • Funder • JST(2013, Funded articles, Recommended)
  • 21. Form Mandate / Recommendation Content Journal Article/Proceedings/Monograph/Data/Metadata Locus IR / Subject Repository / Shared Repository Version Publisher’s PDF/Author Final Manuscript / Preprint Embargo Immediate deposit/Embargo/Embargo+Dark Deposit Waiver Y / N Right Retention University / Author(Faculty) Compliance Y / N Sanction Y / N Gold OA Y / N
  • 22. Current status of OA policy • Region • Europe & North America take the lead • The rest of world: few funder policy • Japanese learned societies: lagging behind major pub/soc • Content • Journal articles+Research data • Type • Green OA + Gold OA • Monitoring & Sanction • Only a few funders(&institutions)
  • 23. Summary •“OA policy implementation is a tough job”(Armbruster 2011) • Institution-specific culture & politics • requiring years of dedicated effort • Hita-hita and/or Mandate? • Failure of Policy • Implementation (U of Maryland),Post-implementation(NIH) • Sharing experiences (Good Practice, Bad Practice) • Monitoring compliance • Possibility after implementing OA policy • Difficulty in capturing the total number and OA rate of research results in a institution Armbruster C. Open access policy implementation: first results compared. Learned Publishing. 2011, 24(4), p.311–324.
  • 24. Summary • Art & Science in OA policy implementation • Empirical/heuristic knowledge for implementing policy • Knowledge needed in the process and decision making • To make it happen • Objective evidence, Leadership, Assessment (Suber 2012) • Policy, Advocacy, Infrastructure • Policy’s goal, target, procedure •“Implementing policy is only open up the possibility” (Armbruster 2011) Suber, P. Open Access. MIT Press. 2012, 242p. Armbruster C. Open access policy implementation: first results compared. Learned Publishing. 2011, 24(4), p.311–324.