in a post-2014 ref · 2018-11-10 · ben johnson,hefce 3 december 2013 in a post-2014 ref •...
TRANSCRIPT
Ben Johnson, HEFCE 3 December 2013
IN A POST-2014 REF
• Unrestricted access via the Internet to peer-reviewed scholarly research
• A global movement
• Driven by new technology
• Driven by the increasing cost and amount of journal articles
• Enabled by the gift culture of the academy
What is open access?
Source: Wikipedia
Increases in open access
Source: Registry of Open Access Repositories Mandatory Archiving Policies (ROARMAP)
Increases in open access
UK movements towards open access
• Finch
• RCUK
• Wellcome Trust
• REF2020
We believe that all research arising from HEFCE funding should be as widely and freely accessible as the available channels for dissemination will allow.
Our objectives
• Significantly increase the proportion of open access research
• Protect academic freedom and author choice as much as possible
• Stimulate the deposit of work in repositories
Outputs submitted to a post-2014 REF should be open access.
Starting point
February advice letter
Outputs submitted to a post-2014 REF should be open access.
Policy proposals
Criteria
Definition
Exceptions
Criteria: what do we mean by open access?
• Accessible through a UK HEI
repository, immediately upon
either acceptance or publication
• Available as the final peer-
reviewed text
=
Criteria: what do we mean by open access?
• Embargo periods may be
respected by the repository
• REF panel will follow embargo
period set by the appropriate
Research Council
=
Criteria: what do we mean by open access?
• Allows search and re-use of
content (including downloading
and text-mining)
• Manual and automated re-use
• Subject to proper attribution
under appropriate licensing
=
Criteria: points for consultation
• Appropriateness of criteria?
• Role for institutional repositories?
• Acceptance or publication?
• Embargo periods varying by REF panel?
• Licensing requirements?
• Journal articles or conference
proceedings only
• Published after a two year
notice period (i.e. 2016)
• UK HEI in address field
Definition: which outputs will need to meet the criteria?
=
• On a case-by-case basis
OR
• A percentage approach to
compliance ‣ consistent across all outputs, or
‣ varying by main panel
=
Exceptions: how should we treat exceptions?
• Consistent target across all
outputs within scope (70%)
• Vary by REF main panel
=
Exceptions: a percentage approach to compliance
Main panel A B C D
Percentage target for
compliance
75
%
75
%
70
%
60
%
What it won't apply to
Current position
• Consultation has ended (though we are still listening)
• Now analysing
• Big decisions
• ETA March 2014
Issues to recognise (and resolve)
Policy decisions
• Acceptance or publication?
• ‘Immediately’?
• Licensing?
• Embargoes?
• Conference proceedings?
• Exceptions?
• Compliance and sanctions?
For repositories…
• Want technical support and guidance
• Want streamlining of requirements and support for standards
• Want further work on licences (particularly around text-mining)
• Want clarity on detailed issues (e.g. what happens when a researcher moves to a new institution?)
Broadly achievable This gives us
what we need
Doing it already
A prediction
• Significant increase of open access outputs (even within publishers’ current policies)
• Increased visibility and usage of repositories
• Many more immediate deposit mandates
• Later: author-driven moves to faster and more permissive access
Further efforts
• Further evidence-gathering work
• Clarity for licensing
• Support for innovation and systemic improvement
• Monographs
• Creative, non-text and practice-based research
• Open data
