Open Access @UF
Faculty viewpoint
Traditional Distribution
Librar
y
User
User
FTP
Electronic Distribution
User
Fee Access
Subscriptions
$
Publishers
Usernames
and
passwords
Site
Licenses
$$$
Editing, reviewing, composing
Site L.
$
Internet
addresses
Individual
subscriptions
Institutions’
staff and
affiliated
personnel
Credit
cards
Everyone else
Free Access
Authors or their
institutions and
funders
$$
Publishers
Editing, reviewing, composing
Everyone on
the Internet
What is OA?
OA is immediate, permanent, toll-free,
online access to the full contents* of
peer-reviewed journal articles.
*Not necessarily the version of record.
Stages in publication
1)
2)
3)
Manuscript (=“preprint”) submitted
Peer review and decision as to publication
Author’s final draft (peer-reviewed) submitted
[Contents complete.]
Stages in publication
1)
2)
3)
4)
5)
6)
7)
Manuscript (=“preprint”) submitted
Peer review and decision as to publication
Author’s final draft (peer-reviewed) submitted
[Contents complete.]
If final draft accepted, copyright transfer
usually requested
Copyright signed away (in whole or in part)
Copy editing, formatting, proofing
Version of record (print and/or pdf)
Copyright rights
 Right
to make copies
 Right to publicly distribute copies
 Right to prepare derivative works
 Right to give or deny others
these rights
Who has copyright to journal
articles?
Authors own all rights to the preprint
 The final submitted manuscript is a
derivative work

Who has copyright to journal
articles?
Authors own copyright to their preprints.
 The final submitted manuscript is a
derivative work
 To publish an article, publishers need
only a nonexclusive right to make and
publicly distribute copies.
 Yet many publishers ask for (and
receive) permanent transfer of all rights.

Two paths to OA
 Journal
publishers make articles OA
= “Gold” OA
Versions of Gold OA
1)
New journal established as fully OA
(e.g., PLoS journals; Journal of Insect Science)
2)
Traditional journal transforms to fully
OA journal
(e.g., Florida Entomologist, in 1994)
3)
Traditional journal sells OA by the
article (=“hybrid OA”)
(e.g., Entomological Society of America journals,
starting in 2000)
Two paths to OA
 Journal
publishers make articles OA
= “Gold” OA
 Authors make articles OA
= “Green” OA
= “Self-archiving”
= Repository-based OA
Variables in Green OA

Place of deposit




Version deposited



Central or subject repository (e.g. PubMed Central)
Institutional repository
Author’s home page
Author’s peer-reviewed manuscript
PDF of version of record
Motivation for deposit


Author’s initiative
Mandates
Q
OA tipping point reached?
Three indicators
1)
2)
3)
Recent rates of increases
Funder mandates
Institutional mandates
Increases in OA journals and
Institutional Repositories in 2008

OA journals

Institutional Repositories +28% (to 1,296)

Items in IRs
+27% (to 3,812)
+45% (to 7,532,473)
Yet ~85% of 2008 articles still not OA.
Source: SPARC Open Access Newsletter (2 Jan 2009).
Why authors don’t self-archive

Lack of understanding of the benefits?
(OA maximizes accessibility, usage, and citation impact.)
Concern that it might be illegal
 Concern that it might put at risk
acceptance by their preferred journal
 Concern that it might take a lot of time
 Infatuation with Gold OA

NIH OA mandate
(signed into law 26 Dec 2007; took effect in Apr 2008)
All NIH-supported investigators must
submit to PubMed Central electronic
versions of their final peer-reviewed
manuscripts upon acceptance for
publication, to be made publicly available
no later than 12 months after official date
of publication.
 Implementation must be in a manner
consistent with copyright law.

How NIH mandate addresses copyright issues
1)
2)
3)
4)
5)
Researcher receives funding from NIH
As a condition of funding, researcher agrees
to deposit any resulting paper in PMC
Researcher offers paper to journal on the
understanding that journal will allow PMC
deposit
Any transfer of copyright must include the
right of the author to deposit paper in PMC
If journal will not comply*, author must find
one that will.
*Thus far, no journal has declined to comply.
Other funder mandates

Howard Hughes Medical Institute (Oct. 2007)
 Autism Speaks (Nov. 2008)
 Institute of Education Science (June 2009)
 Proposed:
Federal Research Public Access Act
[FRPAA]
FRPAA

Introduced in the U.S. Senate in May 2006 but
did not come to a vote.
 Re-introduced in June 2009. Chance of
becoming law much better this time.
 Applies to research funded by agencies with
annual expenditures for extramural research of
$100 million or more (n=11) (e.g., NSF, USDA,
EPA, NASA).
U.S. Institutional OA mandates

Harvard Faculty of Arts & Sciences (FAS)




February 2008
First U.S. Institutional OA mandate
Unanimous!
At Harvard!
Harvard’s FAS OA mandate


Authors grant Harvard “permission to make
available” their scholarly articles and to “exercise the
copyright” in those articles.
What is granted is a nonexclusive, irrevocable, paidup, worldwide license to exercise any and all rights
under copyright.
Harvard’s FAS OA mandate




Authors grant Harvard “permission to make
available” their scholarly articles and to “exercise the
copyright” in those articles.
What is granted is a nonexclusive, irrevocable, paidup, worldwide license to exercise any and all rights
under copyright.
Each faculty member “will provide an electronic copy
of the final version” of each article to the Provost’s
office.
Dean “will waive application of the policy for a
particular article upon written request by a Faculty
member explaining the need.”
More U.S. Institutional mandates










Harvard Faculty of Arts & Sciences (FAS) (Feb 2008)
Harvard Law School (June 2008)
Stanford School of Education (June 2008)
MIT (March 2009)
Harvard JFK School of Government (March 2009)
Oregon State University Library Faculty (March 2009)
Oregon State University Department of Romance
Languages (May 2009)
Harvard Graduate School of Education (June 2009)
University of Kansas (June 2009)
National Center for Atmospheric Research (Oct 2009)
Should the UF Faculty,…
through its Faculty Senate, vote to
make it standard procedure for
faculty to deposit their peerreviewed scholarly research
results in an openly accessible
UF institutional repository?
Stop Here!
Effects of a UF OA mandate




Make all UF peer-reviewed publications freely
accessible and searchable worldwide.
Give UF faculty the benefits of their research results
being quickly and freely accessible worldwide—viz.,
increased usage, more citations, and greater impact.
Free faculty from providing access to their
publications in varied, single-purpose ways—e.g., for
evaluations of varied sorts, including tenure and
promotion
Free faculty from needing to maintain copies of their
publications on their own web sites.
ScholARchive: UF’s Pilot Repository

Principals were EYN, FCLA, and UF Libraries.
 Four EYN faculty uploaded full texts of 25
articles to a pilot IR at http://eprints.fcla.edu/.
 Downloading, mostly through Google, started in
Mar 2007 and increased suddenly in Oct 2007.
 By 7 Jan 2008, downloads averaged 159 per
article. (Range was 0 to 474.)
Descargar

Update on Open Access (OA)