[GOAL] UK HEFCE Call for Comments: Open access and submissions to the REF post-2014

[Stevan Harnad]

*EXCERPTS:*

25 February 2013

Email: openaccess at hefce.ac.uk

www.hefce.ac.uk

*Open access and submissions to the REF post-2014 *

This letter notifies you of our intention to consult formally on the role
of open-access publishing in the submission of outputs to the post-2014
Research Excellence Framework (REF). We would like some early input to help
shape this consultation which will take place later this year. The
consultation has no bearing on the 2014 REF.

The attached document sets out the developing intentions of the four UK
higher education funding bodies. We invite you to comment and advise on a
number of issues to inform the development of the consultation proposals.

Please send responses to *openaccess at hefce.ac.uk*, by *25 March 2013*. We
will consider all responses received by this deadline. We welcome responses
from any person or organisation with an interest in these matters. Please
make it clear in your response whether you are responding as an individual
or on behalf of a group or organisation....

David Sweeney, Director (Research, Innovation and Skills)

*Open Access and Submissions to the Research Excellence Framework post-2014
*

*Introduction *

The four UK higher education funding bodies are committed to the principle
that the wide dissemination of research is an integral part of any high
quality research process1…The established policy of the four funding
bodies, therefore, is that outputs from all research supported though our
funding should be as widely and freely accessible as the available channels
for dissemination permit…

1.    To support and encourage the further implementation of open access we
intend to introduce a requirement that all outputs submitted to the
post-2014 Research Excellence Framework (REF) exercise are published on an
open-access basis, where this is reasonably achievable and where, given the
medium in which the output is presented, the concept of ‘open access’
applies.

*2.    *We accept the Finch Report’s arguments that in the long term, the
gold rather than green route may be the most sustainable way to deliver
open access. We have made it clear that institutions can use our funds
provided for research towards the costs of accessible forms of publication.
The full costs and savings to institutions of the move to open access are,
however, still unknown; it is our intention to work with others in building
our knowledge in this area. *As the transition to full open access will
occur over a period of time, we propose to accept material published via
either gold or green routes as eligible, recognising that it is not
appropriate to express any preference in the context of research assessment.
*[emphasis added]…**

*Funding body expectations for open access in post-2014 REF *

11. We propose to treat as ‘open access’ publications those which meet all
of the following criteria:

deposited in the author's own institutional repository (see paragraph 13)
immediately upon publication, although the repository may provide access in
a way that respects agreed embargos (see paragraph 15)

made available as the final peer reviewed text, though not necessarily
identical to the publisher’s edited and formatted version; and

presented in a form allowing the reader to search for and re-use content
(including by download and for text-mining) both manually and using
automated tools, provided such re-use is subject to proper attribution
under appropriate licensing (see paragraph 16)…

12. *We intend that work which has been originally published in an
ineligible form then retrospectively made available in time for the
post-2014 REF submission date should not be eligible, as the primary
objective of this proposal is to stimulate immediate open-access
publication.* [Emphasis added]…

*The role of institutional repositories*

13. *As part of our commitment to increasing public access, we intend to
require that outputs meeting the REF open access requirement (whether
published by the gold or green route) shall be accessible through an
institutional repository.* [Emphasis added]…

This reflects our view of the significant role of institutional
repositories in increasing sustainable and convenient public access to
research. It is our intention to support the development and use of these
repositories as far as possible. We envisage couching this requirement in
the following terms:

‘All submitted outputs covered by our requirement for open access above,
and other submitted outputs that are available electronically, shall be
available through a repository of the submitting institution.’

14. This would mean in practice that each submitting institution would
maintain a web facility through which all relevant outputs might be
identified and accessed (including items available through a link to
another website).



1.    Some publishers introduce embargo periods before work can be made
available in an open-access form. Where embargoes apply we propose to
determine eligible periods with regard to the practice of other major
research funders at the time. Outputs will be eligible if they are still
under an acceptable embargo at the REF submission date. The Research
Councils are still developing their guidance on embargo periods in
discussion with interested parties, including ourselves. We look forward to
their decisions which, along with responses to this letter, will inform our
final consultation proposals.

2.    We welcome the discussions which the Research Councils are having
about licences with various parties. We recognise there are concerns,
particularly in the arts and humanities community, about the potential
dangers of licence abuse. Allowing re-use of materials is an important
aspect of open-access publishing, and developing effective licences in
terms that recognise the interests of all stakeholders will be an essential
element in this.



*While we expect that sufficient clarity and reassurance on embargoes and
licences will be achieved through the Research Council discussions, we
welcome responses *

*We invite comment on whether respondents feel this is the appropriate
approach or whether they feel that sufficient progress has in fact been
made to implement a requirement for open data as well. We will consider any
representations that such a requirement may reasonably now be developed but
would also need advice on how this might be achieved. *



*Summary of areas for advice *

1.    This template provides a summary of the areas on which we are seeking
advice. You may use this template to respond with your advice if you would
find it helpful.

2.    Please send responses to openaccess at hefce.ac.uk
<openaccess at hefce.ac.uk>by *25 March 2013*

[image: Text Box: We welcome advice on our expectations for open-access
publications, as set out at paragraph 11. We welcome further advice on
repository use and on techniques for institutional repositories to
cross-refer to subject and other repositories. While we expect that
sufficient clarity and reassurance on embargoes and licences will be
achieved through the Research Council discussions, we welcome responses
which address these issues. We welcome advice on the best approach to
exceptions and on an appropriate notice period. Any cases made for
exceptions should be underpinned by clear evidence. We seek comment on when
it may be thought inappropriate to expect repository deposit of monograph
text. Alternatively, given the percentage of submitted material which is in
monograph form, we ask for advice on whether an expectation of a given
percentage of compliance as described above (paragraph 18c) would eliminate
the need for a special-case exception for monographs. We invite comment on
whether respondents feel this is the appropriate approach or whether they
feel that sufficient progress has in fact been made to implement a
requirement for open data as well. We will consider any representations
that such a requirement may reasonably now be developed but would also need
advice on how this might be achieved.]
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/pipermail/goal/attachments/20130225/12e0a05f/attachment.html