insights into european research funder open policies and ... · synergies between member states,...

Insights into Europeanresearch funderOpen policies and practicesSeptember 2019

REPORT

Insights into European research funder Open policies and practices

“InsightsintoEuropeanresearchfunderOpenpoliciesandpractices”Reportcommissionedby:SPARCEuropehttps://sparceurope.org/Contact:VanessaProudmanDirector,[email protected]:MattiaFosci,EmmaRichens,RobJohnsonwww.research-consulting.com

Contact:[email protected]:10.5281/zenodo.3401278DatasetDOI:10.5281/zenodo.3457556Reportdated:September2019

ThisworkislicensedunderaCreativeCommonsAttribution4.0InternationalLicense.

ContentsForeword................................................................................................................................................................3Executivesummary................................................................................................................................................61. Introduction.............................................................................................................................................8

Background..............................................................................................................................................81.1. Surveyquestionset..................................................................................................................................81.2. Breakdownofsurveyrespondents..........................................................................................................81.3. Definitions................................................................................................................................................91.4. Acknowledgements..................................................................................................................................91.5.

2. Europeanfunders’OpenAccessandOpenSciencepolicies..................................................................10 OpenAccesspolicies..............................................................................................................................102.1. ResearchDatapolicies...........................................................................................................................112.2.

3. Fundingthedisseminationofresearch..................................................................................................14 Publicationcharges................................................................................................................................143.1. FundingforOpenAccessinitiatives.......................................................................................................163.2.

3.3 FundingforResearchDatainitiatives....................................................................................................184. Evaluationcriteriaforgrantapplications...............................................................................................19

Funderapproachestograntevaluation.................................................................................................194.1. RelativeimportanceofOpenAccesscriteriaingrantevaluation..........................................................214.2.

5. Reporting,monitoringandcompliance.................................................................................................22 Policymonitoring...................................................................................................................................225.1. Policyenforcement................................................................................................................................255.2.

6. ThefutureofOpenSciencepolicyinEurope.........................................................................................27 OpenAccesspolicy.................................................................................................................................276.1. ResearchDatapolicy..............................................................................................................................296.2. FunderattitudestowardsOpenAccess.................................................................................................316.3.

7. Conclusions............................................................................................................................................328. Furtherreading......................................................................................................................................34AppendixA Respondents................................................................................................................................35

Respondentsbycountry..................................................................................................................................35AppendixB CurrentalignmentwithPlanSprovisions...................................................................................37

B1. SupportforOpenAccessinitiatives..................................................................................................37B2.APCpayments............................................................................................................................................38B3.MonitoringtheOpenAccesspolicy...........................................................................................................40B3.Grantevaluationcriteria,OApublicationsandPlanS...............................................................................41

AppendixC Surveyquestions..........................................................................................................................42Aboutyourorganisation..................................................................................................................................42SectionI–YourpoliciesonOpenAccesstoresearchpublicationsandresearchdata...................................43SectionI–YourpoliciesonOpenAccesstoresearchpublicationsandresearchdata(continued)...............44SectionII-Fundingthedisseminationofresearch.........................................................................................45SectionII-Fundingthedisseminationofresearch(continued)......................................................................45SectionII-Fundingthedisseminationofresearch(continued)......................................................................48SectionIII-Evaluationcriteriaforgrantapplicationsandresearchoutcomes...............................................49SectionIII-Evaluationcriteriaforgrantapplicationsandresearchoutcomes(continued)...........................50SectionIV-Reporting/monitoring/compliance...........................................................................................52SectionV-Plannedpolicychanges.................................................................................................................57SectionV-Plannedpolicychanges(continued)..............................................................................................57

Foreword

AspartofSPARCEurope’svisionto“MakeOpentheDefault”inEurope,fundersarecriticaltocreatingamoreopen,equitable,innovative,impactfulandtransparentresearchenvironment.Researchfundingorganisationsare the life-blood of research and innovation; they are uniquely positioned to influence and fundamentallyshiftpublishingpracticesinEuropeandin-turnmaximisetheimpactofEuropeanresearch.

RecentyearshaveseenaquickeningofOpenScience(OS)policyactivityinEurope.Forinstance,EuropeanMemberStates,includingtheCzechRepublic,Cyprus,France,theNetherlands,Slovenia,SpainandtheUKareincreasinglyadoptinglawsand/ornationalpoliciesthatpromote,andverymuchendorse,theimportanceofOpenScience.In2019alone,wehavewitnessedthepassingofthefirstDirectiveonOpenDataandtheRe-UseofPublicSectorInformationDirective(EU)2019/1024)whichrequiresMemberStatestodevelopnationalpoliciesforopenaccesstoresearchdataresultingfrompublicfundingfollowingtheprincipleof‘openbydefault’.AlsoontheEUlevel,theHorizonEuropeProgrammecallsattentiontotheimportanceofmonitoring,analysingandsupportingthedevelopmentanduptakeofOSpoliciesandpracticesifwearetomaximisesynergiesbetweenmemberstates,regionsandinstitutions—andultimatelyreformandenhancetheEUresearchinnovationsystem.Furthermore,itwasalmostexactlyoneyearago,thattheambitiouscOAlitionSandits10OpenAccessprincipleswereborn.AconsortiumofresearchfundersaresettingouttoacceleratethemigrationtoafullyOpenAccessresearchenvironmentinaco-ordinatedandconcertedwaybyrequiringchangein10keyareas.Inshort,“PlanSaimsforfullandimmediateOpenAccesstopeer-reviewedscholarlypublicationsfromresearchfundedbypublicandprivategrants.”Suchafunder-drivenmandateofthisscopeandscaleisafirst.

Aspartofthisdriveforchange,SPARCEuropewantedtoexplorehowwemightfacilitategreaterengagementwithOpenScienceamongstawiderfieldofOAfundersinEurope,withaninitialstrategyfocusedonsheddinglightontheircurrentpoliciesregardingOSandtowhatextenttheyrewardandincentivisetheirresearcherstoadoptopenpractices.Thusin2018,SPARCEuropeinconsultationwithScienceEurope–theassociationrepresentingmajorpublicorganisationsthatfundorperformresearchinEurope–movedtoestablishtheRewardsandIncentivesamongstFunders(RIF)Project.OurgoalwasultimatelytohelpachievegrowthinthenumberofOpenAccessandOpenSciencepoliciesamongstfundersinEurope,andhelpstrengthenexistingpoliciesbyexaminingOSpolicies(includingOA),rewardsandincentivesofEuropeanfunders.WeaimedtoachievethisgoalbyraisingawarenessoffunderpracticesbyconductingasurveyacrossEurope.

Asafirststep,SPARCEuropesetupanadvisorygrouptodiscussthegoals,objectivesandscopeofthestudy.ThisgroupincludedRobertKiley,WellcomeTrust;FalkReckling,FWF;MathildeReumaux,ScienceEurope;VascoVaz,FCT;andJamesWilsdon,UniversityofSheffield.Weagreedtofocusonnationalfundingagencies,academies,charitiesandfoundations,whichresultedinTheEuropeanFoundationCentre(EFC)andALLEA,theEuropeanFederationofAcademiesofSciencesandHumanities,alsoagreeingtojointheproject.Thejointly-developedsurveywasprimarilycirculatedtomembersoftheseorganisationsaswellastoseveraldiscipline-specificresearchnetworksandtotheEuropeanCommissionandtheEuropeanResearchCouncil,makingthisstudyafirstofitskind.WhilenumerousResearchPerformingOrganisations(RPOs)arefundersofresearch,RPOswerenotincludedinthesurvey;alsoomittedwereresearchcentresexternaltouniversitiesandEuropeanUniversityAssociation(EUA)membersastheorganisationroutinelysurveysthemonOAissues.

Launchedinthespringof2019,thesurvey,whichtargetedabout400funders,garneredjustover60responsesfrom29countries.Thecohortincludesimportantnationalfundingagencies(almost50%),pan-Europeanfunders,nationalandregionalacademies,foundationsandphilanthropicorganisationsandresearchcharities.TheRIFProject’sAdvisoryGroupconsiderstheresponsesarelativelygoodrepresentationofthecurrentOSpolicylandscape,ofwhichthisreportprovidesananalysis.Notethatthisisasnapshotintimeandweareawarethatpoliciesareunderdevelopment.

ThereportfirstlyconfirmsnotionsonthestateofOSpolicyinEurope.Forexample,researchdatapoliciesstilllagbehindthoseofOpenAccesstoresearchpublicationswith61%ofthesamplereportinganOApolicybut69%reportingnodatapolicy.ThisechoesfiguresrecentlypublishedbytheEUAintheirOAreport.ThedataalsocontinuestoshowanimbalanceofpoliciesacrossEurope.Withsomeexceptions,funderOAandOSpoliciesseemtobemoreprevalentinNorthernandWesternEurope.Thereisalsoaneedforanincreaseinpolicydevelopmentincertainregions.ThiswouldhelptoachievealevelplayingfieldacrossEuropepotentiallyavoidingascenariowhereahandfulofregionsorcountrieshaveanoutsizedinfluence.

Thereportillustratestwoclearneeds:1)formorepolicydevelopmentwhereitislacking,and2)wherepolicydoesexist,greateralignmentbetweenpolicyandpractice,andbetweencountries,isadvisable.Furthermore,whenconsideringhowOA/OSfeaturesingrantevaluations,wecangenerallyconcludethatfundersarelargelycontinuingwithtraditionalwaysofevaluatingtheirresearch,withsomestillusingmetricsliketheJIF.Thissaid,theintentionforchangedoesexist,whichisevidencedby27fundersreportinghavingsignedorexpressedpublicsupportforDORA.Consideringthisdisconnect,though,betweenstatedsupportandactualpractice,wecansafelyassumethatpracticalimplementationwillrequireanextendedtimeline,sincethissupportisnotevidentwhenexamininghowresearchcurrentlyisbeingevaluated.Onapositivenote,weseethatOpenSciencecriteriaarebeingusedintheevaluationprocessbysevenfunders.

Othermorestrikingobservationscanalsobemade.DespitemanyfundersreportinghavinganOpenAccesspolicy,onanalysingthedata,wefindthatpractice,again,doesnotalwaysalignwiththispolicy.Forinstance,somerespondentsdonotengageinoffsettingdeals,providepublishingplatformsorjournals,orinvestinopenaccessoropenscienceservicesorinfrastructure,allofwhicharemeanstosupportandimplementpolicy,althoughmanydofundarticlepublicationcharges(APCs)forexample.ApositivewasnotedinhowengagedfundersareinthedevelopmentandsettingofOAstandardsandprinciples;20engagedbycontributingin-kind.Thisfigurechangesto15whenzeroinginonorganisationsthatdevelopanddisseminateresearchdatastandardsandprinciples.

Onsharingdata,itcanbenotedthatveryfewfunders(3)discusswhetherto—orhowto—licenseresearchdatatostimulatere-use;thiswasnotmentionedasatopicforupcomingpolicyreviewseither,whichissomewhatconcerningsinceguidanceisneeded.Regrettably,whenitcomestoprovidingexceptionsforsharingdata,onlysevenoftherespondentscallforexceptionstobejustifiedandrecorded.

AsfarasfinancialincentivesforOAorOSareconcerned,clearlyevidentwasalackoffinancialorin-kindcommitmenttoOAorOSservicesorinfrastructure–researchdatainfrastructure,inparticular.Thisisdisconcertingsincepolicyimplementationverymuchdependsonastableinfrastructure.ItwasnotedthatiffunderscoverAPCs,theygenerallydonotapplyacaptoAPCexpenditure(althoughsomeareconsideringdoingsoinfuture),whichonlysustainsthecurrentcostlysystemwithitshighAPCs.

OnepathforwardtofurtherencourageandsupportOSpolicygrowthamongfundersmaybetoidentifyandhighlightsomegoodpracticesandtoactivelyengagethemintheseconversations.Morein-depthresearchcouldalsobeconductedto:documenttheambitions,goalsandserviceexpectationsoffundersastheyrelatetowhytheyestablishedpublicationplatformsandjournals;explorethemotivationsbehindsomefunders’choicetoinvestinopeninfrastructure;discoverwhoispromotingthere-useofresearchandhow;helpfacilitatetheimplementationofDORA,oranalysethecompliancerateofOAoutputsamongstfundersandthecorrelationbetweenthatandwiththosewhoenforcesanctions.

Inthefollowingmonths,SPARCEuropewillcomparethedatapresentedinthisreportwiththeEuropeanUniversityAssociation’s“2017-2018EUA’sOpenAccessSurveyResults”toidentifysynergiesanddifferencesbetweenresearchperformingorganisations(RPOs),i.e.universities,andfunders.

Aswelookahead,ouranalysisofthesurveydatarevealsanumberofareaswherefunderscouldconsidertakingmoreconcertedactiontoincreasevisibilityoftheirresearchbystrengtheningtheiropenagendasmovingforward.Theseinclude1)EncouragemorefunderstoadoptOpenAccessandOpenDatapoliciesacrossEurope,ordevelopthepoliciestheyhave;2)IncreasesupportforOpenScienceinfrastructure;3)Seektoclosethegaponpolicies,rewardsandincentivesinallEuropeancountries;4)Increasemonitoringcompliancemechanismsandenforcementaction;5)ConsiderreviewingAPCexpenditureandurgepublisherstomakepricingand/orcoststructurestransparent;6)DevelopactionplanstobecomemoreDORAcompliant;7)Analysethedegreetowhichone’spolicymatcheswithothercommitmentstoOpen;8)Domoretostimulatethere-useoftheoutputsfromfundedresearch.

Thehopeoftheadvisorygroupisthatthisreportwillsparkmeaningfulconversation—andultimately,multiplytheactionsbeingtakenamongEuropeanfunderstoadvanceopenaccesstotheirresearch,advancing,too,theopenagendaofEuropeasawhole.

VanessaProudman,September2019

Executivesummary

ThisreportsummarisestheresultsofasurveyofEuropeanresearchfundersonOpenAccess(OA)andResearchData(RD)policies.Thesurveywascompletedby62researchfundersfrom29Europeancountries.1Respondentscomprisednationalfundingagencies(27)andpan-Europeanfunders(2),nationalandregionalacademies(15),foundationsandphilanthropicorganisations(14)andresearchcharities(4).Thisdocumentsummarisesfindingsatapan-Europeanlevel:itdoesnotattempttodrawaconnectionbetweenresponsesandthenationalcontext,whichcouldbepartofaseparateanalysis.

OpenAccesspoliciesAlmosttwothirdsofrespondents(37)haveanOApolicy,mostofwhich(30)havemandatoryrequirements.AllOApoliciescoverscholarlyarticles,andaroundtwothirdsofthemalsocoverbooksandmonographs(24)andconferenceproceedings(22).Although24organisationsdonotyethaveanOpenAccesspolicy,half(12)arecurrentlyintheearlystagesofdevelopingapolicy.Amongtheremainingfunders,themostcommonreasonfornothavingapolicyislackofresourcestodevelopand/orimplementandmonitorit.

ResearchDatapoliciesOvertwothirdsofEuropeanfunders(42outof61respondents)donothaveaResearchData(RD)policy.SevenfundershaveprovisionsonResearchDatathatarepartofabroaderOpenAccessorOpenSciencepolicy,whileonly12respondentshaveadedicatedResearchDatapolicywhichisindependentofthepolicyonresearchpublications.Ofthe19RDpoliciesinplace,overtwothirds(13)includemandatoryrequirements-themostcommonofwhicharedepositingthedatainarepository(14)andproducingaDataManagementPlan(12).However,13morefundersareintheprocessofdevelopingaRDpolicy.

SupportforOApublicationcostsMostfunders(52outof62)providesomesupportforthepaymentofpublicationcosts.Ofthese,28payforArticlePublicationCharges(APCs)andotherpublicationcosts,suchaspageandcolourcharges,while19organisationscoverAPCsonlyandfivecoversomepublicationchargesbutnoAPCs.MostfundersareunawareoftheproportionofresearchoutputsbenefittingfromAPCsupport,whilstmostoftheothers(18outof25)supportAPCsforlessthan50%oftheiroutputs.Themostcommonmechanismforpayingpublicationcostsisasaneligiblecostofresearchgrantsorcontractfunding,andmostfunders(43)donotapplyacaponAPCexpenditure(but9oftheseareconsideringapplyingone).TwothirdsoffundersarenotdoinganyworkonAPCoffsettingdealsorOAtransformativedeals.

1Onlysurveysthatweresubmitted(i.e.whererespondentsclickedthe‘submit’button)areconsideredcompleted.Notethatnotallrespondentswhosubmittedthesurveyresponsecompletedallthequestions(e.g.someresponseswerecompletedby61respondentsorless,whilstotherhaveamuchlowernumberbecausetheyindicateasubsetofresponsese.g.37funderswithanOpenAccesspolicy).Thetextindicatesthetotalnumberofresponsestoeachquestion.

FundingforOAinitiativesEuropeanfundersshowvariableinvolvementinsupportinginitiativessuchasAPC-freeOAplatformsandjournals,standardsandprinciples,repositoriesandservices.OverhalfofrespondentsdonotformallysupportanyOpenAccessinitiative.Repositories(10funders)andOAjournals(9)aretheinitiativesreceivingmostfinancialsupport,whilststandardsandprinciplesaregenerallysupportedwithinkindcontributions(20).16fundersoffertheirownpublishingplatformand/orjournal;theserangefrompublishingOAjournalstohostingopenresearchplatformstoCRIS-typesystemsthatcansupporttheevaluationofresearchprocess.

FundingforRDinitiativesThelandscapeissomewhatsimilarwithregardstoRDinitiatives,with36fundersnotsupportinganyinitiativeandonlyafewprovidingfinancialsupporttoRDinfrastructure.RDstorageservicesandrepositoriesaretheinitiativesthatmostcommonlyreceivefinancialsupport(6funders).

GrantevaluationcriteriaFundersuseawidearrayofgrantevaluationcriteriainadditiontoresearchexcellence.Themostcommonlyusedare:thequalityoftheresearchuptakeanddisseminationstrategy(32),criteriarelatedtotheapplicantstrack-record(29),qualityoftheplanforachievingsocialimpact(28)andevidenceofpastsocietalimpact(26).Openaccessisnotabigfactoringrantevaluation:51fundersmakenodistinctionbetweenOAandnon-OApublications.However,27fundershavesigneduptoorexpressedsupportfortheSanFranciscoDeclarationonResearchAssessment(DORA).

MonitoringandcomplianceMostfunderssupportOApolicyimplementationbyembeddingrequirementsintheirgrantfundingagreements(31).OApolicycomplianceismonitoredby23funderswhileonly9monitortheirRDpolicy.Themostcommonlyusedprocessestomonitorcompliancearegrant-levelandorganisation-levelreporting,monitoringsubmissionsininstitutionalrepositoriesandhigh-levelstudiesofcompliance.AmongthosethatdonotmonitortheirOpenAccessorResearchDatapolicy,alackofmonitoringinfrastructureortoolsiscitedasthemaincause,followedbyalackofresources.Inmostcases,non-compliancewiththepolicyhasnopracticalconsequencesforbeneficiaries.

ReviewofOpenSciencePoliciesOfthe37fundersthathaveanOpenAccesspolicy,15releasedorrevieweditwithinthelast3yearsandanadditional11withinthelast12months.Moreover,35fundersexpecttoreviewtheirpolicywithinthenext3yearsand19oftheseexpecttodosowithinthenext12months.Thenextreviewwillgenerallyfocusonmonitoringandcompliance(24),embargoperiods(18),eligiblejournals(16),APCcapping(15)andsupportmechanismsforfundingpublicationcosts(12).WithregardstoResearchData,16policieswerereviewedoverthepast3years,andfiveofthosewerereviewedinthepast12months.18outof19policieswillbereviewedinthenext3years,andhalfofthoseinthenextyear.

PlanSOutof61respondents,55areawareofPlanS.Ofthese31aresupportiveoftheplantovaryingdegrees,whilstaboutathird(19)havenotyetformulatedapositiononPlanSandonlytwoarenotsupportive.11fundershavealreadysigneduptoPlanSandafurtherthreeareintheprocessofaligningtheirpolicywithit.

1. Introduction

Background1.1.

ThisreportpresentstheresultsofasurveypreparedbyResearchConsultingonbehalfofSPARCEuropeandinconsultationwithrepresentativesfromALLEA,theEuropeanFoundationCentreandScienceEurope.ThesurveyinvestigatestherewardsandincentivesforOpenScienceamongstEuropeanfunders,andthecurrentandplanneddevelopmentsinOpenAccessandResearchDatapolicyacrossthecontinent.ItsfindingswillbeusedtoraiseawarenessofrewardsandincentivestructuresthatsupportOAandOSamongstfunders,toinspirefurtheropenresearchpolicydevelopmentinEuropethatcanspeedupaccesstopublicresearchresultsandtohelpmakeOpenAccesstoresearchthedefault.

Surveyquestionsetanddataavailabilitystatement1.2.

ThesurveyquestionsetisavailableintheZenodorepository:http://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.2611115andintheAppendix.Mostquestionswereoptional,thusthenumberofresponsestoeachquestionvary.Onlysurveysthatweresubmitted(i.e.thosewhererespondentsclickedthe‘submit’button)weremarkedas‘completed’,whereasunsubmittedresponseswerenotconsideredintheanalysis.However,noteveryquestionneedstobeansweredforasurveytobeconsideredcompleted.Forinstance,someresponseswerecompletedby61respondentsorless,whilstotherhavemuchlowernumberbecausetheyindicateasubsetofresponsese.g.37funderswithanOpenAccesspolicy.Thetextandfiguresindicatethetotalnumber(n)ofresponsestoeachquestion.ThedatasetgeneratedandanalysedduringthisstudyisavailableintheZenodorepository,http://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.3457556.

Breakdownofsurveyrespondents1.3.

ThesurveyofEuropeanresearchfunderswasdistributedtomembersofSPARCEurope,ScienceEurope,ALLEA,theEuropeanFoundationCentre(EFC),theAssociationofMedicalResearchCharities(AMRC)andtheEuropeanCentreforinformationonMarineScienceandTechnology(Eurocean).Itwascompletedby62fundersfrom29countries.Fig.1Surveyrespondentsbygeographicallocation(n=62)

0123456789

10

UK

Swed

en

Belgium

Germ

any

Ireland

Italy

Switzerland

Austria

Denm

ark

Finland

France

Latvia

Poland

Spain

Albania

Croatia

CzechRe

public

Estonia

Greece

Kosovo

Lithuania

Luxembo

urg

Nethe

rland

s

Norway

Portugal

Romania

Slovakia

Sloven

ia

Turkey

Almosthalfofrespondents(n=27)arenationalfundingagencies,whilstnationalacademieswerethesecondlargestgroupwith15respondents2andfoundationsandphilanthropicorganisationsformedthethirdlargestgroupswith14respondents.Amongtheremainingorganisations,fourrespondentswereresearchcharitiesandtwoarepan-Europeanfunders.3Thesurveywasalsocompletedbytwootherorganisations,whoseresponseshavenotbeenincludedinthereportonthegroundsthattheydonothavearoleinfundingresearch.Fig.2Surveyrespondentsbyorganisationtype(n=62)

Respondentscoveredthefullrangeofscholarlydisciplines,andmostfundmultipledisciplines.Medicalandhealthscienceswerethedisciplinesmostfundedbyrespondents(53respondents),followedbysocialsciences(51responses),naturalsciences(49responses)andartsandhumanities(49responses).Funderssupportingengineeringandtehcnology(42responses)andagriculturalsciences(37responses)werealsowidelyrepresented.

Definitions1.4.

OpenAccesstoresearchpublications:OpenAccessisthefreeonlineavailabilityofresearcharticles,books,orotherpublishedcontent,combinedwithlicensingthatallowsreusewithlimitedornorestrictions.OpenScience:thepracticeofscienceinsuchawaythatotherscancollaborateandcontribute,whereresearchdata,labnotesandotherresearchoutputsandprocessesarefreelyavailable,undertermsthatenablereuse,redistributionandreproductionoftheresearchanditsunderlyingdataandmethods(adaptedfromtheFOSTERdefinition).FAIRData:setofguidingprinciplestomakedataFindable,Accessible,Interoperable,andReusable(seethefulldefinition).

Acknowledgements1.5.

ThereportwasdevelopedbyResearchConsultingonbehalfofSPARCEurope.WeareverythankfultoVanessaProudmanforherleadershipandguidance.Wewouldalsoliketothankthemembersoftheproject’sadvisorygroup,RobertKiley,FalkReckling,MathildeReumaux,VascoVazandJamesWilsdon.Finally,wethankourcolleaguesatALLEA,AMRC,EFC,EuroceanandScienceEuropeforhelpingdistributethesurveytotheirmembers.

2Thisincludesaregionalacademy,theAkademiederWissenschafteninHamburg3OneofthetworespondentsistheOpenScienceUnitoftheEuropeanCommission’sDirectorateGeneralforResearchandInnovation.Whilstnotstrictlyspeakingaresearchfunder,theDGisresponsibleforEUpolicyonresearch,scienceandinnovation.

27

14

15

4 2nationalfundingagency

foundation/trust/philanthropicorganisation

nationalacademy

NGO/charity

internationalfundingagency

2. Europeanfunders’OpenAccessandOpenSciencepolicies

OpenAccesspolicies2.1.

WeaskedfundersiftheirorganisationhasanOpenAccess(OA)policyforresearchpublications(scholarlyarticles,booksetc).Outof61responses,twothirdsindicatedthattheyhaveanOApolicy.Ofthese,30funderssaidthattheirpolicyhasmandatoryrequirementswhilesevenhaveanon-mandatorypolicy.Thismeansthat,overall,justunderhalfoftherespondentsplacestrictobligationsontheirbeneficiariestomaketheirresearchpublicationsOpenAccess.Fig.3NumberoffunderswithmandatoryOApolicies,non-mandatoryprovisionsandnopolicy(n=62)

WhilstallOApoliciescoveredresearcharticles,ahighnumberofpoliciesalsocoveredbooksandmonographs(23policies)andconferenceproceedings(21policies).However,insomecases,OApublicationofbooksandmonographsisencouragedratherthanmandated.Thisalsoappliestogreyliterature,whichiswithinthescopeofonlysixpolicies.Pre-printsarewithinthescopeoffourpolicies,andanadditionalrespondentindicatedthattheywillbeinscopeforfuturepolicy.Inafewcases(e.g.theRoyalSociety)thepolicydoesnotspecifythetypeofpublicationthatmustbemadeavailable,andthereforealltypesofpublicationscontainingresearchfindingsarepotentiallysubjectedtoit.Fig.4-OutputswithinscopeoftheOpenAccesspolicies(n=37)

3

3

4

6

22

24

37

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40

Posters

Presentations

Preprints

Greyliterature

Conferenceproceedings

Monographsandbooks

Scholarlyarticles

Count

30

7

24

OApolicywithmandatoryrequirements

OApolicywithnon-mandatoryrequirements

NoOApolicy

Of24organisationsthatdonotyethaveanOpenAccesspolicy,half(12)arecurrentlyintheearlystagesofdevelopingthepolicy.Amongtheremainingfunders,themostcommoncausefornothavingapolicyislackofresourcestodevelopand/orimplementandmonitorit.Afewrespondentsindicatedinthefree-textquestionsthattheOApolicyisnotapriorityforthem,eitherbecauseresearchismarginaltotheiroverallmission(1)orbecausetheyarenotconvincedthatOAincreasesthescientificimpactoftheirresearch(2).Fig.5-ReasonsfornothavinganOpenAccesspolicy(n=24)

ResearchDatapolicies2.2.

InstarkcontrastwithOpenAccesstoresearchpublications,mostEuropeanfundersdonothaveaResearchData(RD)policy.Outof61respondents,42donothaveapolicywhilstsevenhaveprovisionsonResearchDatathatarepartofabroaderOpenAccessorOpenSciencepolicy.Only12respondentshaveadedicatedResearchDatapolicywhichisindependentofthepolicyonresearchpublications.WhilstnoteveryonethathasanOApolicyhasaRDpolicy,everyonethathasaRDpolicyhasanOApolicy.Fig.6–NumberoffunderswithaResearchDatapolicy(n=62)

2

2

4

4

4

12

0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14

Wedonothavetheresourcestoimplementandmonitorpolicycompliance

WeareatanadvancedstageinthedevelopmentofanOpenAccesspolicy

Other

Wedonothavetheresourcestodevelopthepolicy

OpenAccessisnotapriorityformyorganisation

WeareintheearlystagesofdevelopinganOpenAccesspolicy

Count

7

12

42

Yes,aspartofabroaderOpenAccess/OpenSciencepolicycomprisingallscientificoutputs

Yes,separatefromtheOpenAccesspolicyonresearchpublications

No

Ofthe19RDpoliciessurveyed,overtwothirds(13)includemandatoryrequirements.Themostcommonrequirementsaredepositingthedatainarepository(14)andproducingaDataManagementPlan(12).Theapproach‘asopenaspossible,asclosedasnecessary’,adoptedbytheEuropeanCommission,isenshrinedin14outof19ResearchDatapolicies.Mostpolicies(11)requirethatorganisationsputinplacemeasuresfordigitalpreservationoftheirresearchdata.Withregardstosupport,10policiespromotetheprovisionofguidanceandtoolkitsandanequalnumberalsomakesprovisionforfinancialsupporttomeetdatamanagementandsharingcosts.OnlytwopoliciesmakeprovisionfortheperiodicreviewofResearchData.Fig.7-ResearchDatarequirements(n=19)

2

5

6

7

8

9

9

10

10

11

11

12

14

14

0 5 10 15

Dataissubjectedtoperiodicreview

ProvisionofaDataAvailabilityStatementexplainingwherethedatacanbeaccessedandunderwhat

conditions

Other

CompliancewiththeFAIRDataprinciples

Retainingresearchdataforaminimumlengthoftime

Makingthedataopenwithinafixedtimeframe

ProvisionofatemplateforcreatingaDataManagementPlan

Financialsupporttomeetdatamanagement/sharingcosts

Guidanceandsupport(e.g.FAQs,bestpracticeguides,toolkits,staff)

Ethicaluse/reuseofdata

Digitalpreservationofresearchdata

ProductionofaDataManagementPlaninthegrantapplicationthatconsidersdatacreation,

managementand/orsharing

Followstheapproach‘asopenaspossible,asclosedasnecessary’

Depositingresearchdatainarepository

Count

Amongthe42organisationsthatdonotyethaveaRDpolicy,almostathird(13)statedthattheyareintheearlystagesandfourmoresaidthattheyareatanadvancedstageinthedevelopmentofthepolicy.Includingtextual‘other’responses,nineorganisationsstatedthatRDisnotapriorityforthemwhilstsevenorganisationscitedresourceconstraintsasthemainreasonfornothavingapolicy.Threeofthetextual‘other’responsesareconsideringaResearchDatapolicyorexaminingtheneedforone.Fig.8-ReasonsfornothavingaResearchDatapolicy(n=42)

2

4

5

6

12

13

0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14

Wedonothavetheresourcestodevelopthepolicy

WeareatanadvancedstageinthedevelopmentofaResearchDatapolicy

Wedonothavetheresourcestoimplementandmonitorpolicycompliance

ResearchDataisnotapriorityformyorganisation

Other

WeareintheearlystagesofdevelopingaResearchDatapolicy

Count

3. Fundingthedisseminationofresearch

Publicationcharges3.1.

Thesecondpartofthesurveyinvestigatedfunders’financialsupportforOpenAccessandResearchData.52outof62respondentsstatedthattheirorganisationsupportsthepaymentofpublicationcosts.Ofthese,28providethebroadestsupport,whichcoversArticlePublicationCharges(APCs)andotherpublicationcosts,suchaspageandcolourcharges.19organisationscoverAPCsonlyandfivecoversomepublicationchargesbutnoAPCs.Almost90%(33outof37)oftheorganisationsthathaveanOApolicysupportthepaymentofpublicationcharges.19respondentssupportpublicationchargeseventhoughtheydonothaveanOApolicy,whereasfourorganisationshaveanOApolicybutdonotsupportforpublicationcharges.ThelackofanOApolicydoesnotseemtolimitfinancialsupportforAPCs:almosthalfoftheorganisationsthatdonothaveanOApolicy(12outof25)supportAPCsandotherpublicationcharges.Fig.9-Fundersupportforpublicationcharges(n=62)

MostorganisationssupportthepaymentofAPCsandotherpublicationcostsasaneligiblecostofresearchgrants(36outof52),whilstamuchlowernumberdoessothroughindividualdecisionsatpublication/projectlevel(12)orbyprovidingblockgrantstoresearchorganisations(8).Someorganisationshavemultipledisbursementmechanisms(hencethetotalbelowishigherthan52).

4

1

16

16

6

4

3

12

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Nosupport

NotAPCsbutotherpublicationcharges

SupportAPCsonly

SupportAPCsandothercharges

HaveanOApolicy NoOApolicy

Fig.10-Paymentmechanismstosupportpublicationcosts(n=52)

ThesurveythenaskedwhatproportionofresearchoutputbenefitsfromAPCsupport.Overhalfofthe52respondentsdonothavedatainthisregardorchosenottocomment.Oftheremainingfunders,themajority(13outof25)fundlessthan25%oftheirresearchoutputswhilstsevenfunderssupportAPCsformorethanhalfoftheirresearchpublications.Fig.11-ProportionofresearchoutputsbenefitingfromAPCsupport(n=52)

Oncapping,outof52respondents,only9applyacaponarticleprocessingcharges.Ofthe43thatdonotcurrentlyhaveacap,however,ninefundersareconsideringitsintroduction.Fig.12-OrganisationsapplyingacaponAPCexpenditure(n=52)

AskedwhethertheirorganisationisdoinganyworkonAPCoffsettingdeals/OpenAccesstransformativedeals,two-thirdsofrespondents(42outof62)reportednoactivity.Theremaining20fundersareparticipatinginanumberofactivitiesrelatedtoAPCoffsetting:10fundersarenegotiatingdealsaspartofaconsortiumandafurtherfourarenegotiatingdealsdirectlywithpublishers.Moreover,ninefundersarecollectingdataonoffsettingagreements,discountschemesandmembershipswhileeightarepreparingguidelinesfornegotiatingoffsettingdeals.Itislikelythatthisisoccurringsincetheyarealsosubscribers.

7

8

12

36

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40

Other

ThroughdedicatedgrantstoResearchPerformingOrganisations/HigherEducation

Bydirectapplicationatpublication/projectlevel

Asaneligiblecostofresearchgrant/contractfunding

2

3

4

5

13

25

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Nocomment

Morethan75%

50-75%

25-49%

Lessthan25%

Notknown

9

9

34

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40

No,butweareconsideringintroducingacap

Yes

No

Fig.13–FunderactivityonAPCoffsettingortransformativedeals(n=62)

FundingforOpenAccessinitiatives3.2.

EuropeanfundersshowvariableinvolvementinsupportingOpenAccessinitiativessuchasAPC-freeOAplatformsandjournals,standardsandprinciples,repositoriesandservices.Overhalfofthefundersdonotsupportanythird-partyOpenAccessinitiative.OpenAccessrepositoriesandAPC-freeorsubsidisedOpenAccessjournalsarethetwotypesofinitiativesthatattractthemostwidespreadfinancialsupport(by10and9fundersrespectively)but42fundersindicatethattheydonotsupportinternationalOArepositorieseitherfinanciallyorinkind,ofwhich20arenationalandinternationalfundingagencies.Standardsandprinciplesontheotherhandaresupportedinkindby20funders,andfinanciallybyafurtherfour.44respondentsrecordedthattheydidnotsupportplatformsandservicesforOAbooksandmonographs,halfofwhomarenationalandinternationalfundingagencies.Notethatcertainfundersareregularlyfundinganumberofdifferentinitiatives,Also,thatchartnumbersbringallfunderstogetherregardlessofsize.Fig.14-SupportprovidedtoOpenAccessinitiativesbyallfunders(in-kindorfinancial)(n=62)

3

6

8

8

8

21

1

2

1

2

21

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45

Directlynegotiatingoffsetting/transformativedealswithpublishers

Other

Preparingnewguidelinesfornegotiatingoffsetting/transformativedeals

Collectingdataonoffsettingagreements,discountschemesandmemberships

Participatinginconsortianegotiatingoffsetting/transformativedeals

None

HaveanOAPolicy DonothaveanOApolicy

05

101520253035404550

APC-freeorsubsidisedOpenAccessplatforms

APC-freeorsubsidisedOpenAccessjournals

DevelopmentanddisseminationofOpenAccessstandardsandprinciples

OpenAccessrepositories

OpenAccessservices

PlatformsandservicesforOAbooksandmonographs

Fundingprovidedtoexternalentities In-kindsupport None

Unsurprisingly,mostofthesupportforOAinitiativesisprovidedbyfundersthathaveanOApolicyinplace.OnlyafewfunderswithoutanOApolicyactivelycontributetofundingOpenAccessinitiatives,andwhentheydosothisisusuallydonethroughin-kindcontributions.Fig.15-SupportprovidedtoOpenAccessinitiativesbyfunderswithanOApolicy(in-kindorfinancial)(n=37)

Givensuchlimitedsupportforthird-partyOpenAccessinitiativesandsupportforAPCpayments,thesurveytheninvestigatedwhatroutesEuropeanfundersareofferingtopublishtheirfundedresearchoutputsOpenAccess.Thevastmajorityofrespondents(46outof62)donothavetheirownOApublishingplatformorjournalsasapublishingoptionforfundedresearchers.Ofthesixteenwhodohavetheirownsolutions,morehaveanOAplatform(7)thanOAjournals(6),whileonlythreehavebothaplatformandjournals.Forthosewhodidnothaveeither,whenaskediftheywereactivelyconsideringthisasanoption,ofthosewhoresponded,25funderssaidthattheyarenotconsideringit,withthreestating‘perhaps’andtwoindicatingtheyhavefirmplanstoimplementaplatformorjournal.Fig.16-OrganisationsofferingtheirownOApublishingplatformorjournals(n=62)

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

APC-freeorsubsidisedOpenAccessplatforms

APC-freeorsubsidisedOpenAccessjournals

DevelopmentanddisseminationofOpenAccessstandardsandprinciples

OpenAccessrepositories

OpenAccessservices

PlatformsandservicesforOAbooksandmonographs


3

6

7

46

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50

Yes,bothOApublishingplatformandjournals

Yes,OAjournalsonly

Yes,OApublishingplatformonly

No,neither

Count

3.3 FundingforResearchDatainitiatives

ThefundinglandscapeissomewhatsimilarwithregardstoRDinitiatives.36fundersdonotsupportanyRDinitiative,whileonlyafewprovidefinancialsupporttoResearchDatainfrastructure:datastorageservicesarefundedby6,andsupportedinkindbysixothers,withoneprovidingboth.Onefunderfinanciallysupportsresearchdataregistrieswithfiveofferingin-kindsupportwhereassixfinanciallysupportResearchDatarepositories,andtwoinkind.Fivefundersfinanciallysupportpreservationandfiveothersprovidein-kindsupport.RDstorageservicesandrepositoriesaretheinitiativesthatmostcommonlyreceivefinancialsupport(bothprovidedbysixfunders,fourofwhicharethesame).Notethatchartnumbersbringallfunderstogetherregardlessofsize.Fig.17-SupportprovidedtoResearchDatainitiativesbyallfunders(inkindandfinancial)(n=52)

SimilarlytoOpenAccess,funderswithaRDpolicyarealsomorelikelytobecontributingtothebroaderRDlandscapethroughfundingorinkindsupportthanthosewhodonothaveapolicy.Fig.18-SupportprovidedtoResearchDatainitiativesbyfunderswithaRDpolicy(inkindandfinancial)(n=19)

05

101520253035404550

Datapreservationservices

(archiveddata)

Datastorageserices(active

data)

Developmentand

disseminationofResearch

Datastandardsandprinciples

GuidanceforResearchDataManagement

Researchdataregistries

ResearchDatarepositories

SupportforpreparingDataManagement

Plans

Fundingprovidedtoexternalentities In-kind None

02468

1012

Datapreservationservices

(archiveddata)

Datastorageservices(active

data)

Developmentand

disseminationofResearch

Datastandardsandprinciples

GuidanceforResearchDataManagement

Researchdataregistries

ResearchDatarepositories

SupportforDMPS


4. Evaluationcriteriaforgrantapplications

Funderapproachestograntevaluation4.1.

Thesurveyalsotriedtogaugefunders’criteriaandapproachestogrant-makingbeforelookingatOpenScienceinthisprocess.First,itaskedwhattypesofcontentreviewersareexpectedtotakeintoconsiderationwhenevaluatingthetrackrecordofagrantapplicant.Booksandmonographs(50responses)andscholarlyarticles(49responses)arethemostcommonlyconsideredoutputs.Conferenceproceedingsareanoutputconsideredbyalmosttwo-thirdsofrespondents(40),whilstaroundhalfconsiderdatasets(26)andpresentations(25).21alsolookedatcodeandsoftware.Fig.19–Outputsconsideredingrantevaluations(n=62)

Inadditiontothequalityoftheproposedresearch,fundersseemtouseawidearrayofcriteriaintheevaluationofgrantapplications.Thequalityoftheresearchuptakeanddisseminationstrategyisthemostcommonly-used(32responses),aheadofcriteriarelatedtotheapplicant’strack-record(suchasnumberofpeer-reviewedpublications,awardsreceived,H-indexorJournalImpactFactor).TheH-IndexandJIFareeachappliedby18respondents.Thequalityoftheplanforachievingsocialimpact(28responses)andtheevidenceofpastsocietalimpactachievedbyapplicants(26responses)arealsoamongthemostcommonlyusedcriteria.13fundersalsoconsiderthequalityoftheDataManagementPlan.13respondentsalsoaffirmedevaluatingplansforequalityanddiversity.Thetwolowest-scoringcriteriawereAltmetrics(5)andconsideringtheapplicant’snumberofpeerreviews(4).Fromothercriteriamentioned,afewrespondentsnotedthatevaluationcriteriadependsonthefundingschemeinquestion,andseveralfundersallowreviewerstohaveadegreeofdiscretionindeterminingthemostrelevantcriteriaforaspecificcall.However,othersnotedthat,inthecontextofsigningDORA,theevaluationcriteriaisunderreview.

19

19

21

25

26

26

40

49

50

0 10 20 30 40 50 60

Greyliterature(i.e.non-peer-reviewedoutputs)

Posters

Codeandsoftware

Presentations

Datasets

Other

Conferenceproceedings

Scholarlyarticles

Monographsandbooks

Count

Fig.20–Grantevaluationcriteriausedbyrespondents(n=62)

Asfarasmechanismsandpracticestoeducatefunderevaluators/peerreviewersonOpenAccessorResearchDataareconcerned,eightfundersreportedactivelyengagingwithreviewersand/orevaluators,withfourotherorganisationsshareinformationwiththemandafurtherfourplanningactivitiesinthisarea.

4

5

13

13

14

18

18

21

22

22

25

26

26

28

28

29

29

32

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35

Numberofpeerreviewsundertakenbyapplicants

Altmetricsassociatedwithpublicationsbyapplicants

Qualityofplanstopromoteequalityanddiversity

Qualityofdatamanagementplan

Wedonothaveaformalsetofcriteria

Journalimpactfactor(JIF)ofpublicationsbyapplicants

H-Indexofapplicants

Other

Qualityofwiderresearchenvironmentatapplicants’organisation(s)

Previousgrantincomeofapplicants

Numberofinventions,patentsandcommercialactivitybyapplicants

Evidenceofpastsocietalimpactachievedbyapplicants

Numberofcitationsofpublicationsbyapplicants

Qualityofprojectmanagement/governancearrangements

Qualityofplanforachievingsocietalimpact

Prizesorhonoursreceivedbyapplicants

Numberofpeer-reviewedpublicationsbyapplicants

Qualityofresearchuptakeanddisseminationstrategy

Count

RelativeimportanceofOpenAccesscriteriaingrantevaluation4.2.

Whenlookingatthetrack-recordofagrantapplicant,mostfundersdonotmakeadistinctionbetweenOpenAccessandnon-OApublicationswhenreviewinggrants.OnlysevenfundersgivemoreweighttoOApublicationsingrantevaluation,andoftheseonlythreeonlyconsiderOApublications.NosignificantdifferenceintherelativeimportanceofOApublicationsingrantevaluationscanbeseenamongorganisationsthathaveanOpenAccesspolicy.Fig.21–WeightingofOpenAccesspublicationsingrantevaluation(n=58)

ThesurveythenaskediforganisationsuseOpenScience-relatedcriteriaingrantassessment,e.g.thoseproposedintheOpenScienceCareerAssessmentMatrix(OS-CAM).OnlysevenorganisationsstatedthattheyuseOpenScience(OS)criteriaingrantassessment,ofwhichsixhaveanOAorRDpolicy.Fig.22–UseofOpenSciencecriteriaingrantevaluation(n=58)

Ahighnumberoffundersreportedsupportingoradoptingatleastonedeclarationontheresponsibleuseofmetricsinresearchevaluationthataccountforabroaderviewofresearchperformance.Inparticular,27fundershavesigneduptoorsupportedtheSanFranciscoDeclarationonResearchAssessment(DORA),whilsttheotherinitiativeshavefarfewerendorsementswiththeLeidenManifestocominginsecondplacewithsix.NoclearcorrelationcouldbeinferredbetweensupportforsuchdeclarationsandthepresenceofOSpolicies.

1

2

4

51

0 10 20 30 40 50 60

WeonlyconsidercompliantOpenAccesspublications

WeonlyconsidercompliantOpenAccesspublications,orthosecoveredbyanagreedexceptiontothepolicy

Weconsideralloutputs,butadditionalweightisattachedtocompliantOpenAccesspublications

WemakenodistinctionbetweenOpenAccessandnon-OpenAccesspublications

1

6

22

29

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40

DonothaveanOA/RDpolicy

HaveanOA/RDpolicy

Yes No

Fig.23–Funders’supportfortheresponsibleuseofresearchmetrics(n=59)

OtherincentivesmentionedtorewardgoodOpenSciencepracticeincluderequiringapplicantstowriteaspecificparagraphonOAandhowthisrelatestotheirresearch.Relatedtothis,inthenextnationalevaluationframeworkforresearchuniversitiesintheUK(ResearchExcellenceFramework),institutionswillbeinvitedtodescribetheirOAstrategies,includingwherethisgoesaboveandbeyondfunderOApolicyrequirements,andwideractivitytoencouragetheeffectivesharingandmanagementofresearchdata.Anotherfundermentionedaskingapplicantsinfutureontheiropenresearchtrackrecord(thoughprobablynottobereviewedformally)butshowingthefunder’scommitmenttoOS. ProvidingguidanceonandimplementationoftheDORAprincipleswasmentionedbytwoorganisations.Oneorganisationreportedthattheyformallyrecogniseprojectsthathaveachievedoutstandingeconomicandsocietalbenefitbypresentingresearcher/swithanawardfor'BestReportedImpact'.OSleadershipwasmentionedbyseveralfunders,andtakesplaceindifferentways:theserangefromadvocatingforanationalco-ordinatedapproachtoopenresearchamongstdifferentstakeholdersinIrelandtoissuingpubliccommuniquésinsupportofOSorcontributingtothefundingofastaffmemberoftheOpenSciencePolicyPlatform.OneorganisationreportedofferingawiderangeofrewardsandincentivestostimulateOS,includingbyfundingsecondarydataanalysisprojects,conferencesandworkshopsdedicatedtoOS,andcallsdedicatedtoKnowledgeExchangeandDissemination.Thefunderalsoallowsbudgetlinestobeincludedondatamanagement,itisfundingaproofofconceptcallfornationalinfrastructureforthesecuredataaccess,sharing,storageandlinkage;anditprovidessupport(NDandNCProles)forresearchprogrammeswhichfollowOSpolicies.5. Reporting,monitoringandcompliance

Policymonitoring5.1.

ThesurveyexploredtheworkflowsfundershaveinplacetoensurethattheOpenAccesspolicyiseffectivelyimplemented.MostrespondentsindicatedthattheyembedOApolicyrequirementsintheirgrantfundingagreements(31).Asignificantnumber(17)requiredepositofoutputsinaspecifiedrepository,andninefundersmonitordepositinrepositoriesthatmeettheircriteria.TheuseofreportsonOAcompliancefrombeneficiariesisalsoquitewidespread(17),whilstmostofthe16fundersthatindicatedtheyhaveanOAplatformorjournalusethoseplatformstomonitornumbersofOApublications.Onefunderindicatedthat

0102030405060

SanFranciscoDeclarationonResearchAssessment

(DORA)

LeidenManifestoforResearchMetrics

TransparencyandOpennessPromotionGuidelines(TOP)

InitiativeforOpenCitations(I4OC)

Signedup Expressedpublicsupport Didnotexpresssupport

theyaredevelopinganationwideresearcher-centriccurrentresearchinformationsystemthataimstointegrateallaspectsofthemanagementofresearchandtheirworkflowswiththerepositorynetwork,soastoachievesemi-automateddepositsofpublicationsdeclared.Fig.24–MechanismstosupportOApolicyimplementation(n=37)

Withregardstomonitoring,23outof35respondentsindicatethattheymonitortheirOpenAccesspolicywhilstonlyninemonitortheirResearchDatapolicyandtheDataManagementPlansspecifically(thisisoutof19fundersthathaveanRDpolicy).

6

9

10

13

15

17

17

31

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35

Weindependentlymonitorcomplianceusingweb-scalesearchtoolsonaregularbasis

Wemonitordepositsinspecifiedrepositoriesthatmeetourcriteria

WemonitornumbersofpublicationsonourownpublishingplatformorOAjournal

Other

WepublishandregularlyupdateguidancedocumentsforOpenAccesstoresearchpublicationsandresearch

data

WereviewreportsonOpenAccesscompliancefromgrantbeneficiaries

Weaskgrantbeneficiariestosystematicallydepositresearchoutputsormetadatainaspecifiedrepository

WeembedOpenAccesspolicyrequirementsingrantfundingagreements

Count

Fig.25–NumberoffundersmonitoringcompliancewiththeirOpenSciencepolicies(n=35)

AmongthosethatdonotmonitortheirOpenAccessorResearchDatapolicy,alackofmonitoringinfrastructureortoolsiscitedasthemaincause,followedbyalackofresources(arguablytocreateorrunsuchinfrastructure).Fig.26–FactorspreventingfundersfrommonitoringtheirOpenSciencepolicies(n=25)

FundersthatdomonitorcompliancewiththeirOpenAccess/ResearchDatapolicy(ies),generallydosothroughgrant-levelreportingbyfundingrecipients.Thesecondmost-usedmechanismssitatoppositeendsoftheautomationspectrum:in11cases,policiesaremonitoredbylookingatsubmissionsininstitutionalrepositoriesviaanationalorinternationalaggregator(systematicandautomatedmonitoringprocess).Bycontrast,11policiesaremonitoredandthroughhigh-levelstudiesofcomplianceand10throughorganisational-levelreportingbyinstitutions(theseare,generallyspeaking,non-systematicandmanualprocesses).Asidefromweb-basedsearchtools(8),theremainingmechanismsallappeartoinvolvemanualmonitoringandfairlyonerousprocesses.However,outof36respondents,23statedthattheirorganisationisconsideringtheintroductionoffurthermechanismsandtoolsformonitoringcomplianceinthenearfuture.

05

10152025

OpenAccessPolicytoresearchPublication

ResearchDatapolicy DMPsspecifically

Monitorcompliance Donotmonitorcompliance

02468

101214

Lackoftime Lackofresources Lackofadequatemonitoringinfrastructure

ortools

Lackofmandatoryrequirementsworth

monitoring

OAPolicy ResearchDataPolicy

Fig.27–Monitoringprocessesandtools(n=22)

Policyenforcement5.2.

Finally,thesurveylookedattheconsequencesofnon-compliancewiththefunder’sOpenAccess(OA)/ResearchData(RD)policy.Mostfundersseemtoadoptalenientapproachtoenforcementthateitheradmonishesauthorsorinstitutionstocomplywiththepolicyorhasnoplannedconsequencesfornon-compliance.However,asmallnumberoffundersstatedthattheyconsiderpreviouslevelsofcompliancebyindividualauthororPIinsubsequentgrantapplications:sevenconsiderpreviouscompliancewiththeOApolicyandthreewiththeRDpolicy(3).PreviouscompliancewithOApolicy(5)andRDpolicy(2)isalsoconsideredintheallocationofOAfunding.AfewrespondentsalsowithholdprojectfundinguntilcompliancewithOApolicy(4responses)orRDpolicy(2responses)isachieved.Finally,othersanctionsincludeareductionofthegrantandadecisiontoamakenon-OApublicationineligibleinresearchassessment.

2

0

5

3

0

1

4

3

2

9

0

3

1

3

5

7

7

7

9

17

0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18

Usingexpertevaluatorstoassessdatamanagementdeliverables

Bymonitoringdepositinnationalrepositories

Throughassessmentofdatamanagementplansbyinternalorexternalreviewers

Throughspot-testingofresearchoutputs

Bymonitoringdepositinspecificsubjectrepositories

Monitoringusingweb-basedsearchtools

Throughhigh-levelstudiesofcompliance

Throughorganisation-levelreportingbyinstitutions

Bymonitoringdepositininstitutionalrepositoriesviaanational/internationalaggregator

Throughgrant-levelreportingbygrantrecipients

OpenAccessPolicy ResearchDatapolicy

Fig.28–Consequencesofnon-compliancewithOSpolicies(n=31)

1

1

1

3

4

5

7

11

12

17

0

0

1

1

2

2

3

6

10

8

0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18

Outputsthatarenotcompliantwiththepolicyareunclassifiedintheassessmentexercise

Wearecurrentlydeterminingfurtheradequateconsequences

Areductionofthegrantmaybeapplied

Thelevelofpolicycomplianceisconsideredintheassessmentofsubsequentgrantapplications(by

departmentororganisation)

Disbursementoffinalinstalmentofthegrantiswithhelduntilpolicycomplianceisachieved

Thelevelofpolicycomplianceisconsideredinthesubsequentallocationofopenaccessfunding(e.g.incase

ofblockgrants)

Thelevelofpolicycomplianceisconsideredintheassessmentofsubsequentgrantapplications(byindividual

authororPI)

Institutionsareadmonishedtocomplywiththepolicy

Therearenoconsequences

Authorsareadmonishedtocomplywiththepolicy

ResearchDatapolicy OpenAccesspolicy

6. ThefutureofOpenSciencepolicyinEurope

OpenAccesspolicy6.1.

ThelastpartofthesurveyinvestigatedwhatactivitiesfundersareplanningaroundtheirOpenSciencepolicies.Ofthe37fundersthathaveanOpenAccesspolicy,15releasedorrevieweditwithinthelast1to3yearsandanadditional11withinthelast12months.Theremaining11fundershaveapolicythatisatleast4yearsold.Fig.29–LastrevisionoftheOpenAccesspolicy(n=37)

Despitetherelativerecencyofmanypolicies,thevastmajorityoffundersexpecttoreviewtheirpolicywithinthenext3years(35outof37)andoverhalfofthemexpecttodosowithinthenext12months(19outof37).Fig.30–ExpectedrevisionoftheOpenAccesspolicy(n=37)

Mostfundersexpectthatthenextreviewwillfocusonmonitoringandcompliance(24),followedbyembargoperiodsandeligiblejournals(inparticularlookingattheeligibilityofhybridjournals).AsignificantproportionofrespondentsalsoexpectthenextreviewtolookintotheissueofcappingAPCs(15)and,perhapsinconnectiontothat,toreviewsupportmechanismsforfundingpublicationcosts(12).

7

4

11

15

0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16

Morethan5yearsago

Withinthelast4-5years

Withinthelast12months


2

16

19

0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20

Within4-5years

Within1-3years

Withinthenext12months

Fig.31-ExpectedscopeofthenextOApolicyreview(n=37)

Europeanfunderswerethenaskedtodescribetheirorganisation’spositiononPlanS.Outof61respondents,only6funderswereunawareofPlanSandonlytwowerenotsupportive.Aboutathird(19)havenotyetformulatedapositiononthePlan,whilsttheremainingfundersexpresseddifferentdegreesofsupport.11fundershavealreadysigneduptoPlanSandafurtherthreearealigningtheirpolicywithit;14arebroadlysupportiveoftheplanbuthavenotsignedupduetoconcernsaboutsomeofitsprovisions.Fig.32–Funders’positionsonPlanS–allfunders(n=61)

4

7

7

8

8

12

12

15

16

18

24

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Unsure

Technicalrequirementsandinfrastructure

Postingofpreprints

Other

Eligiblerepositoriesforself-archiving

Licensing

Supportmechanismsforfundingpublicationcosts

APCcaps/limits

Eligiblejournals(e.g.hybrid)

Embargoperiods

Monitoringandcompliance

1

1

2

3

6

12

16

20

0 5 10 15 20 25

Unsure

Other

WearenotsupportiveofPlanS

WearealigningourpolicywithPlanS

WearenotawareofPlanS

WearealreadyPlanSsignatories

WearebroadlysupportiveofPlanS,althoughweareconcernedaboutsomeprovisions

WeareawareofPlanSbuthavenotformulatedaposition

Amongthe37fundersthathaveanOApolicy,amuchhigherproportionarealreadyPlanSsignatories(12),arealigningtheirexistingpolicywithit(3)orarebroadlysupportiveoftheplan(16).Fig.33–Funders’positionsonPlanS–funderswithanOApolicy(n=37)

Researchdatapolicy6.2.

WithregardstoResearchData,mostpolicies(16outof19)werereviewedoverthepast3years,andfiveofthosewerereviewedinthepast12months.Furthermore,allbutonefunderexpecttoreviewtheirpolicyoverthenextyear(9)orwithinthenext1-3years(9).Fig.34-–LastrevisionoftheResearchDatapolicy(n=19)

Fig.35-ExpectedrevisionoftheResearchDatapolicy(n=19)

1

1

2

1

8

11

13

0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14

WearenotsupportiveofPlanS

WearenotawareofPlanS

WearealigningourpolicywithPlanS

Other

WeareawareofPlanSbuthavenotformulatedaposition

WearealreadyPlanSsignatories

WearebroadlysupportiveofPlanS,althoughweareconcernedaboutsomeprovisions

3

11

5

0 2 4 6 8 10 12



Withinthelast12months

1

9

9

0 2 4 6 8 10

Within4-5years

Within1-3years

Withinthenext12months

MostfundersexpecttorevisetheirpolicytoendorseorpromotetheFAIRDataprinciples(12).Alargenumberarealsolikelytoconsidertheguidanceandsupportcurrentlyprovided(10)andtheirapproachtodigitalpreservation(9).Tenfunderswillbelookingatincorporatingtheapproach‘asopenaspossible,asclosedasnecessary’intheirrevisedpolicy.Fig.36-ExpectedscopeofthenextRDpolicyreview(n=17)

2

2

2

3

4

4

4

5

6

8

9

10

11

12

0 5 10 15

Unsure

Other

Dataissubjectedtoperiodicreview

Makingthedataopenwithinafixedtimeframe(e.g.oneyearfromproject

end,oruponpublication)

Retainingresearchdataforaminimumlengthoftime

ProvisionofaDataAvailabilityStatementexplaininghowthedatacanbeaccessed(appendedtoallresearchpublications)

Ethicaluse/reuseofdata

Financialsupporttomeetdatamanagement/sharingcosts

Depositingresearchdatainarepository

ProductionofaDataManagementPlaninthegrantapplicationthatconsidersdatacreation,management,and/or

Digitalpreservationofresearchdata

Followstheapproach‘asopenaspossible,asclosedasnecessary’

Guidanceandsupport(e.g.FAQs,bestpracticeguides,toolkits,staff)

CompliancewiththeFAIRDataprinciples

FunderattitudestowardsOpenAccess6.3.

Inconclusion,thesurveyaskedfunderstoindicatehowimportanttheythinkmakingOpenAccessthedefaultforthegoodofresearchis.Outof59respondents,35statedthatOpenAccessisveryimportantforresearchandafurther18statedthatitisimportant.OnlyfivedeemOA‘somewhatimportant’andonedeemsitnotveryimportant.Fig.37–Funders’attitudestowardstheimportanceofmakingOpenAccessthedefaultforthegoodofresearch(n=59)

1

5

18

35

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40

Notveryimportant

Somewhatimportant

Important

Veryimportant

7. Conclusions

ThisreporthassummarisedfindingsfromasurveyofEuropeanresearchfunders.Ithastakenapan-Europeanperspectiveandhasnotanalysedthenationalcontextinwhichfundersoperate.AnanalysisofthenationalcontextisrecommendedtodrawoutdistinctionsbetweenthevariouscountriesandregionsofEuropeandinfertheinfluenceofthenationalpolicyandsocio-economiccontextonthesystemofrewardsandincentivesforOpenAccessandOpenScience.Pan-EuropeanresultsshouldalsobeconsideredwithcaregiventhatrespondentsonlyrepresentasampleofallEuropeanfunders.Inparticular,responsesfromNorthernandWesternEuropeareovertwothirdsofthetotal(41outof62responses–seesection1,figure1).Withthesecaveatsinmind,weareabletodrawsomeconclusionsfromtheresultsobtained.

Incentivisingresearchers

FundersareyettomakecompliancewithOAandRDpoliciesaninfluentialfactoringrantevaluationcriteria.Nevertheless,thesurveyrevealedpromisingdevelopmentsthatcanincentiviseresearcherstoembracetheOpenScienceagendamoreproactively.Thesetrendsarethewidespreaduseofgrantevaluationcriteriarelatedtothequalityoftheresearchuptakeanddisseminationstrategy,thequalityoftheplanforachievingsocietalimpactandtheevidenceofsocialimpactfrompreviousresearchprojects.WhilstnotdirectlyrelatedtoOpenScience,thereisaclearoverlapbetweentheaimsofthesecriteriaandtheoverarchinggoalsofOpenScience,whichcouldbefurtherexploredandemphasisedbythefundingcommunity.

Trendsinpolicydevelopment

AlmosttwiceasmanyfundershaveanOpenAccesspolicythanaResearchDataone.However,bothfundersshowaclearmovementtowardsthedevelopmentofnewpoliciesforOpenAccessandResearchData,with12and13fundersrespectivelycurrentlyworkingonone.Moreover,mostfundersexpecttoreviewtheirpoliciesoverthenext12or36months.WithregardstoOA,expectedpolicychangesmentionedconcernmonitoringandcompliance,embargoperiods,journaleligibilityandAPCs.ForbothOAandRD,themainreasonsfornothavingapolicyarethatthisisnotconsideredapriorityorthatthefunderlacksadequateresourcestoimplementit.

Costsandresourcing

Mostfundersprovidesomesupportforthepaymentofpublicationcosts,evenintheabsenceofapolicy.Ofthese,almostallpayforArticlePublicationCharges(APCs).However,thereisalackofawarenessofwhatproportionoffundedoutputiscurrentlyreceivingAPCsupportand,amongthosethathavedata,themajoritypaysAPCsforlessthanhalfthetotalresearchpublicationoutput.AsuseofAPCsupportisstillrelativelylow,thereseemstobeariskforfinancialheadwindscausedbyAPCs,andthefactthatninefundersareconsideringintroducingacaponAPCsgoesinthisdirection.

FunderparticipationinOpenScienceinitiatives

SupportforOpenAccessinitiativesremainsrelativelyweak,withover50%ofrespondentscurrentlynotprovidinganysupporttoanythird-partyinitiative.ThissuggeststhattheecosystemofservicesandinfrastructureswhichOAreliesonisunevenlysupported.ThelandscapeisevenmorebleakforRD,where36fundersdonotprovideanykindofsupportforanyinitiative.Thereseemstobethepotentialformoreawarenessinthisarea.Forinstance,fundersthatindicatetheywouldstruggletoimplementOpenSciencepoliciesduetolackofresourcescouldinsteadprovidein-kindsupporttocurrentinitiativesandpooltheirlimitedresourcesinbuildingopensourcesystemsandapan-EuropeaninfrastructureforOpenScience.

Overall

Overall,thesurveyrevealedaclearunderstandingoftheimportanceofOpenSciencebythevastmajorityoffunders,andacommitmenttofurthersupportitsdevelopmentacrossEurope.With90%ofrespondentsstatingthatmakingOpenAccessthedefaultisimportantorveryimportanttothefutureofresearch,itseemsthatthechallengeforOpenAccessadvocatesisnolongerthatofgeneratingsupportfortheprinciplebutratherfindingpracticalandcost-effectivewaystosupportachangeofattitudeandpracticesamongresearchers.

8. Furtherreading

D.Herrmannova,NPontika,P.Knoth,DoAuthorsDepositonTime?TrackingOpenAccessPolicyCompliance,June2019,https://arxiv.org/pdf/1906.03307.pdfJune2019D.Mellor,TheLandscapeofOpenDataPolicies,29Aug2018,CenterforOpenScience,https://cos.io/blog/landscape-open-data-policies/

M.Hunt,M.Picarra,OpenAccessPolicyAlignment,Pasteur4OABriefingPaper,March2016http://pasteur4oa.eu/sites/pasteur4oa/files/resource/FUNDERS_POLICY%20GUIDELINES%20FINAL.pdfV.Larivière&CRSugimoto,Doauthorscomplywhenfundersenforceopenaccesstoresearch?Nature,24October2018R.Morais,LBorrell-Damián,2017-2018EUAOpenAccessSurveyResults,EUReporthttps://eua.eu/resources/publications/826:2017-2018-eua-open-access-survey-results.htmlA.Swan,OpenAccesspolicyeffectiveness:Abriefingpaperforresearchinstitutions,Pasteur4OAbriefingpaper,Sept2015http://pasteur4oa.eu/sites/pasteur4oa/files/resource/Policy%20effectiveness%20-%20funders%20final.pdfDigitalScience,StateofOpenData2018,Report,22Oct2018,https://www.digital-science.com/resources/portfolio-reports/state-open-data-2018/Battaglia,S.etal,EOSCpilot-FinalPolicyRecommendationsReport,20May2019,https://eoscpilot.eu/content/d36-final-policy-recommendationsOpenResearchFundersGroup,'HowOpenIsit?AGuidetoResearchFunders'Policies',https://static1.squarespace.com/static/5817749f8419c25c3b5b318d/t/5963bdcc414fb59e9c249fa9/1499708906446/ORFG+Funder+Policy+Guide.pdfFairsharing.orgPoliciesDatabase,https://fairsharing.org/policies/

AppendixA Respondents

Respondentsbycountry

Albania AcademyofSciencesofAlbaniaAustria AustrianAcademyofSciences(ÖAW)

AustrianScienceFund(FWF)Belgium FundforScientificResearch-F.R.S.-FNRS

FondationFournierMajoieResearchFoundationFlanders(FWO)

Croatia CroatianScienceFoundation(HRZZ)CzechRepublic CzechAcademyofSciences

Denmark IndependentResearchFundDenmark(DFF)TheCarlsbergFoundation

Estonia EstonianResearchCouncil(ETAG)Europe EuropeanCommissionDGRTDUnitOpenScience

EuropeanResearchCouncil(ERC)Finland FinnishAcademyofTechnicaSciences

KoneFoundation(KoneenSäätiö)France AcadémiedesSciencesFrance

TheFrenchNationalResearchAgency(ANR)Germany AkademiederWissenschafteninHamburg

GermanReadingFoundationHeidelbergerAkademiederWissenschaftenStiftungMercator

Greece GeneralSecretariatofResearch&TechnologyIreland HealthResearchBoard(HRB)

RoyalIrishAcademyScienceFoundationIreland

Italy BraccoFoundationCompagniadiSanPaoloFondazioneCariplo

Kosovo Kosovo'sAcademyofSciencesandArtsLatvia LatvianAcademyofSciences

LatvianScienceCouncil(LZP)Lithuania ResearchCouncilofLithuania(LMT)

Luxembourg NationalResearchFund(FNR)Netherlands NetherlandsOrganisationforScientificResearch(NWO)

Norway TheResearchCouncilofNorway(RCN)Poland FoundationforPolishScience(FNP)

TheNationalScienceCentre(NCN)Portugal FoundationforScienceandTechnology(FCT)Romania UEFISCDI-ExecutiveAgencyforHigherEducation,Research,

DevelopmentandInnovationFundingSlovakia SlovakAcademyofSciencesSlovenia SlovenianResearchAgency(ARRS)

Spain "laCaixa"FoundationSpanishResearchAgency(AEI)

Sweden ResearchCouncilFormasStiftelsenförStrategiskForskningSwedishFoundationforStrategicResearch(SSF)SwedishResearchCouncil(VR)SwedishResearchCouncilforHealth,WorkingLifeandWelfare(Forte)TheFoundationforBalticandEastEuropeanStudies

Switzerland SwissAcademiesofArtsandSciencesSwissNationalScienceFoundation(SNSF)TheJacobsFoundation

Turkey TheScienceAcademy-BilimAkademisiUK ArcadiaFund

KidneyResearchUKMQ:TransformingMentalHealthParkinson'sUKTheLearnedSocietyofWalesTheRoyalSocietyUKResearchandInnovation(UKRI)WellcomeTrustWorldwideCancerResearch

AppendixB CurrentalignmentwithPlanSprovisions

Inaddition,welookedathowfunders’OpenAccesspoliciesalignwiththreekeyareascoveredbyPlanS:supportforOAjournalsandplatforms;supportforAPCpayments;OpenAccesspolicymonitoring;andgrantevaluationcriteria(implementationguidance).ThisanalysiswasnotpartoftheinitialbriefbutwasincludedasanappendixtothemainreporttohighlightfindingsthatarerelevanttotheemergingpolicydevelopmentsintheEuropeanOAlandscape.

B1. SupportforOpenAccessinitiatives

ThegraphbelowshowssupportforOAinitiativesinrelationtothefunders’currentpositiononPlanS.NosignificantdifferencecanbeseeninthelevelofsupportprovidedtodifferentOAinitiativesbetweenthosefundersthatarealignedwithorsupportiveofPlanSandtheotherfunders.4Fig.38–SupportforOAinitiatives,byfunderpositiononPlanS(n=60)

4Pleasenotethatthenumbersinfig.38areabsolutes,sotherearemoreorganisationssupportingOAinthe‘Signedoraligned”and“Broadlysupportive”categoriesbecausethosecategorieshaveafargreaternumberoforganisationsinthefirstplace(seefig.32above).Whatmattersinfig.38isnotthelengthofeachbar(whichlargelymirrorsthedistributionofrespondentsinfig.32)butthedistributionofresponseswithineachbar.Alsonotethatthetotalnumberofresponsesinsomegraphscanbehigherthanthetotalnumberoffundersbecauserespondentscouldselectmultipleoptions.

1

3

4

2

1

1

5

4

2

5

10

7

1

1

9

6

1

4

4

1

2

6

1

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40

Notsupportive/aware/sureofPlanS

AwareofplanSbutnoposition

BroadlysupportiveofPlanSwithreservations

SignedoralignedwithPlanS

SupportforOAinitaitves

Positionon

PlanS

SupportsAPC-freeorsubsidisedOpenAccessplatforms

SupportsAPC-freeorsubsidisedOpenAccessjournals

SupportsdevelopmentanddisseminationofOpenAccessstandardsandprinciples

SupportsOpenAccessrepositories

SupportsOpenAccessservices

SupportsplatformsandservicesforOAbooksandmonographs

B2.APCpayments

EveryorganisationthathassigneduptoPlanS,oraligneditspolicywithit,supportsthepaymentofpublicationcosts.Bycontrast,theproportionoforganisationsthatprovidenosupportforAPCsornosupportforanypublicationcharge,increasessignificantlyamongorganisationsthathavenotyetformulatedapositiononPlanSorthatareunsupportiveorunawareoftheplan.Amongtheorganisationsthatarebroadlysupportiveoftheplanbuthaveraisedconcerns,threecurrentlydonotsupportAPCpayments.Fig.39–SupportforAPCpayments,byfunderpositiononPlanS(n=60)

PlanSsignatoriesandsupportersemployavarietyofmechanismstosupportAPCpayments.SupportasaneligiblecostofresearchgrantorcontractfundingremainsthemostpopularAPCsupportmechanismamongallfunders.Fig.40-APCsupportmechanisms,byfunderpositiononPlanS(n=51)

4

3

2

2

2

1

6

5

8

3

9

8

7

0 5 10 15 20 25

Notsupportive/aware/sure

AwareofPlanSbutnoposition

Broadlysupportivewithreservations

Signedoraligned

SupportforAPCs

Positionon

PlanS

Nosupport NotAPCsbutotherpublicationcharges SupportAPCsonly SupportAPCsandothercharges

3

4

3

2

2

3

3

5

2

15

10

8

0 5 10 15 20 25




Signedoraligned

APCsupportmechanisms

Positionon

PlanS

ThroughdedicatedgrantstoResearchPerformingOrganisations/HigherEducation

Other

Bydirectapplicationatpublication/projectlevel

Asaneligiblecostofresearchgrant/contractfunding

AmongfunderswhosepoliciesarealignedwithPlanS,halfeitherhaveacaponAPCsorareconsideringitsintroduction.AmongotherfundergroupstheproportionoffunderswithanAPCcapissubstantiallylower.Fig.41-SupportforAPCdeals,byfunderpositiononPlanS(n=60)

FundersalignedwithPlanSarethemostproactiveintheirsupportforAPCoffsettingdeals,withoverthreequarterstakingsomeactioninthisdirection(9).Sixfundersaredirectlyinvolvedindealnegotiation(2individuallyand4aspartofaconsortia),fivemorearepreparingguidelineforoffsettingnegotiationsandsixarecollectingdataonoffsettingagreements,discountschemesandmemberships.OverhalfofthefunderssupportingtheplanwithreservationsarealsoactivelylookingatAPCdeals,withfivefundersbeingactivelyinvolvedindealnegotiations.Bycontrast,onlysixout21fundersthatdonothaveapositiononPlanSareactiveonAPCdeals,andnofunderthatisunsupportiveorunawareofPlanShasreportedanyactivity.

1

1

2

2

4

4

1

2

5

3

6

2

1

5

9

15

10

6

0 5 10 15 20 25 30




Signedoraligned

SupportforAPCdeals

Positionon

PlanS

Directlynegotiatingoffsetting/transformativedealswithpublishers

Participatinginconsortianegotiatingoffsetting/transformativedeals

Preparingnewguidelinesfornegotiatingoffsetting/transformativedeals

Collectingdataonoffsettingagreements,discountschemesandmemberships

Otheractivities

Noactivity

Fig.42-APCcaps,byfunderpositiononPlanS(n=51)

B3.MonitoringtheOpenAccesspolicy

Whilstthemajorityofrespondentsoverallhavesystemsinplacetomonitorcompliancewiththeirpolicy,theproportionishigheramongfunderswhosepolicyisalignedwithPlanS(10out13)andthosebroadlysupportiveoftheplan(8outof13).Fig.43–FundersactivelymonitoringtheirOApolicy,byfunderpositiononPlanS(n=35)

4

14

9

7

1

3

4

1

2

2

4

0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18




Signedoraligned

UseofAPCcaps

Positionon

PlanS

No No,butweareconsideringintroducingacap Yes

1

4

8

10

1

3

5

3

0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14




Signedoraligned

Policymonitoring

Positionon

PlanS

MonitortheirOApolicy DonotmonitortheirOApolicy

B3.Grantevaluationcriteria,OApublicationsandPlanS

PlanSsignatoriesareoverallmuchmoresupportiveoftheSanFranciscoDeclarationonResearchAssessment(DORA)thantheircounterparts,inlinewithPlanS’sownimplementationguidance.

Fig.44–EndorsementofDORA,byfunderpositiononPlanS(n=58)

2

2

3

10

5

2

2

7

12

10

3

0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20




Signedoraligned

EndorsementofDORA

Positionon

PlanS

SignedUp Expressedpublicsupport Didnotexpresssupport

AppendixC Surveyquestions5

Aboutyourorganisation

1)Whatisthenameofyourorganisation?*_________________________________________________2)Whichofthefollowingbestdescribesyourorganisation?*()Internationalfundingagency()Nationalfundingagency()ResearchPerformingOrganisation()NGO/Charity()Foundation/Trust/PhilanthropicFunder/InstitutionalPhilanthropicOrganisation()Nationalacademy()Other-pleasespecify:_________________________________________________3)Inwhatcountryisyourorganisationbased?*_________________________________________________4)Whichofthefollowingdisciplinesarewithinthescopeofyourorganisation?(Pleasetickallthatapply)[]ArtsandHumanities[]AgriculturalSciences[]EngineeringandTechnology[]MedicalandHealthSciences[]NaturalSciences[]SocialSciences[]Other-pleasespecify:_________________________________________________5)Yourdetails(optional)YourName:_________________________________________________Yourfunctionwithinyourorganisation:_________________________________________________6)ContactDetails(optional)_________________________________________________

5Fosci,Mattia,Johnson,Rob,Kiley,Robert,Reumaux,Mathilde,Reckling,Falk,Vogt,Robert,…Proudman,Vanessa.(2019,March27).SPARCEuropeSurveyofEuropeanResearchFunders(March2019).Zenodo.http://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.2611115

7)DoyouconsenttobecontactedbyResearchConsultingincaseweneedmoreinformationregardingthefeedbackyouaregivingonbehalfofyourorganisation?()Yes()No

SectionI–YourpoliciesonOpenAccesstoresearchpublicationsandresearchdata

8)DoesyourorganisationhaveanOpenAccesspolicyforresearchpublications(scholarlyarticles,booksetc)?()Yes(pleaseaddaURLforthepolicybelow)()NoComments:DoestheOpenAccesspolicyincludemandatoryrequirements?()Yes()NoWhatarethereasonsforyourorganisationnothavinganOpenAccesspolicyforresearchpublications?(Pleasetickallthatapply)[]OpenAccessisnotapriorityformyorganisation[]Wedonothavetheresourcestodevelopthepolicy[]Wedonothavetheresourcestoimplementandmonitorpolicycompliance[]WeareintheearlystagesofdevelopinganOpenAccesspolicy[]WeareatanadvancedstageinthedevelopmentofanOpenAccesspolicy[]Other-pleasespecify:_________________________________________________WhatoutputsarewithinthescopeofyourOpenAccesspolicy?(Pleasetickallthatapply)[]Scholarlyarticles[]Conferenceproceedings[]Monographsandbooks[]Greyliterature(i.e.non-peer-reviewedoutputs)[]Posters[]Preprints[]Presentations[]Other-pleasespecify:_________________________________________________

SectionI–YourpoliciesonOpenAccesstoresearchpublicationsandresearchdata(continued)

9)DoesyourorganisationhaveaResearchDatapolicy?()Yes,separatefromtheOpenAccesspolicyonresearchpublications(pleaseaddURLbelow)()Yes,aspartofabroaderOpenAccess/OpenSciencepolicycomprisingallscientificoutputs(pleaseaddURLbelow)()Yes,other(pleaseaddURLandfurtherinformationbelow)()NoComments:10)DoestheResearchDatapolicyincludemandatoryrequirements?()Yes()NoWhichofthefollowingprovisionsdoesyourResearchDatapolicycontain?(Pleasetickallthatapply)[]CompliancewiththeFAIRDataprinciples[]Dataissubjectedtoperiodicreview[]Depositingresearchdatainarepository[]Digitalpreservationofresearchdata[]Ethicaluse/reuseofdata[]Financialsupporttomeetdatamanagement/sharingcosts[]Followstheapproach‘asopenaspossible,asclosedasnecessary’[]Guidanceandsupport(e.g.FAQs,bestpracticeguides,toolkits,staff)[]Makingthedataopenwithinafixedtimeframe(e.g.oneyearfromprojectend,oruponpublication)[]ProductionofaDataManagementPlaninthegrantapplicationthatconsidersdatacreation,managementand/orsharing[]ProvisionofatemplateforcreatingaDataManagementPlan[]ProvisionofaDataAvailabilityStatementexplainingwherethedatacanbeaccessedandunderwhatconditions[]Retainingresearchdataforaminimumlengthoftime[]Other-pleasespecify:_________________________________________________WhatarethereasonsforyourorganisationnothavingaResearchDatapolicy?()ResearchDataisnotapriorityformyorganisation()WeareatanadvancedstageinthedevelopmentofaResearchDatapolicy()WeareintheearlystagesofdevelopingaResearchDatapolicy

()Wedonothavetheresourcestodevelopthepolicy()Wedonothavetheresourcestoimplementandmonitorpolicycompliance()Other-pleasespecify:_________________________________________________

SectionII-Fundingthedisseminationofresearch

11)Doesyourorganisationsupportthepaymentofpublicationcosts?()Yes,APCsonly()Yes,APCsandothercharges(e.g.pageandcolourcharges)()NotAPCs,butotherpublicationcharges()NoHowdoesyourorganisationsupportthepaymentofAPCsandotherpublicationcosts,whereapplicable?(Pleasetickallthatapply)[]Asaneligiblecostofresearchgrant/contractfunding[]Bydirectapplicationatpublication/projectlevel[]ThroughdedicatedgrantstoResearchPerformingOrganisations/HigherEducationInstitutions[]Other-pleasespecify:_________________________________________________Approximately,whatproportionofyourresearchoutputsbenefitsfromAPCsupport?Ifyouhavenodata,pleaserespondaccordingtoyourpersonalexperienceandperception.()Lessthan25%()25-49%()50-75%()Morethan75%()Notknown()NocommentDoesyourorganisationapplyacaponAPCexpenditure?()Yes()No()Yes,butwewanttoremoveit()No,butweareconsideringintroducingacap

SectionII-Fundingthedisseminationofresearch(continued)

12)DoesyourorganisationofferitsownOApublishingplatformorjournals?()Yes,bothOApublishingplatformandjournals

()Yes,OAjournalsonly()Yes,OApublishingplatformonly()No,neitherPleaseaddanyrelevantdetailsinthecommentsboxbelow,includingalinktotheplatform/journalorotherrelevantresources.________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________Pleaseindicatewhetherthisissomethingyouareactivelyconsidering.________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________13)Whatsupport,ifany,doesyourorganisationprovidetothefollowingOpenAccessinitiatives?‘In-kindsupport’couldbelogisticalorITsupport,amemberofyourorganisationsitsonasteeringboardetc.(Pleasetickallthatapply)

Fundingprovidedtoexternalentities

In-kindsupport None

APC-freeorsubsidisedOpenAccessplatforms(e.g.WellcomeOpenResearch)

[] [] []

APC-freeorsubsidisedOpenAccessjournals(e.g.Hrcak,OLH,SciPost)

[] [] []

DevelopmentanddisseminationofOpenAccessstandardsandprinciples(e.g.OpenAPC,OpenCitations,ORCID)

[] [] []

OpenAccessrepositories(e.g.EuropePMC,OAPEN,arXiv)

[] [] []

OpenAccessservices(e.g.SHERPA,DOAJ)

[] [] []

PlatformsandservicesforOAbooksandmonographs(e.g.KnowledgeUnlatched,OpenEdition)

[] [] []

Ifanotheroptionwasentered,pleaseprovidesomeexamplesofinitiativescurrentlysupportedbyyourorganisationnotmentionedabove.________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

SectionII-Fundingthedisseminationofresearch(continued)

14)IsyourorganisationdoinganyworkonAPCoffsettingdeals/OpenAccessTransformativedeals?(Pleasetickallthatapply)[]Collectingdataonoffsettingagreements,discountschemesandmemberships[]Directlynegotiatingoffsetting/transformativedealswithpublishers[]Participatinginconsortianegotiatingoffsetting/transformativedeals[]Preparingnewguidelinesfornegotiatingoffsetting/transformativedeals[]Noneoftheabove[]Other-pleasespecify:_________________________________________________15)Whatsupport,ifany,doesyourorganisationprovidetothefollowingResearchDatainitiatives?‘In-kindsupport’couldbelogisticalorITsupport,amemberofyourorganisationsitsonasteeringboardetc.(Pleasetickallthatapply)

Fundingprovidedtoexternalentities

In-kindsupport None

Datapreservationservices(archiveddata)

[] [] []

Datastorageservices(activedata)

[] [] []

DevelopmentanddisseminationofResearchDatastandardsandprinciples(e.g.FAIRData)

[] [] []

GuidanceforResearch

[] [] []

DataManagement(e.g.UKDSguidance)

Researchdataregistries(e.g.re3data)

[] [] []

ResearchDatarepositories(e.g.thoseincludedintheNaturelist)

[] [] []

SupportforpreparingDataManagementPlans

[] [] []

Ifanotheroptionwasentered,pleaseprovidedetailsofanyinitiativescurrentlysupportedbyyourorganisationnotmentionedabove.________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

SectionIII-Evaluationcriteriaforgrantapplicationsandresearchoutcomes

16)Whattypesofcontentdoesyourorganisationexpectreviewerstotakeintoconsiderationwhenevaluatingthetrackrecordofagrantapplicant?[]Codeandsoftware[]Conferenceproceedings[]Datasets[]Greyliterature(i.e.non-peer-reviewedoutputs)[]Monographsandbooks[]Posters

[]Presentations[]Scholarlyarticles[]Other-pleasespecify:_________________________________________________17)Whatcriteria,otherthanexcellence/qualityofresearch,doesyourorganisationuse,orexpectreviewerstouse,toassessgrantapplications?(Pleasetickallthatapply)[]Altmetricsassociatedwithpublicationsbyapplicants[]Evidenceofpastsocietalimpactachievedbyapplicants[]H-Indexofapplicants[]Journalimpactfactor(JIF)ofpublicationsbyapplicants[]Numberofcitationsofpublicationsbyapplicants[]Numberofinventions,patentsandcommercialactivitybyapplicants[]Numberofpeerreviewsundertakenbyapplicants[]Numberofpeer-reviewedpublicationsbyapplicants[]Previousgrantincomeofapplicants[]Prizesorhonoursreceivedbyapplicants[]Qualityofdatamanagementplan[]Qualityofplanforachievingsocietalimpact(e.g.oneconomy,publicpolicy,civilsocietyetc)[]Qualityofplanstopromoteequalityanddiversity[]Qualityofprojectmanagement/governancearrangements[]Qualityofresearchuptakeanddisseminationstrategy[]Qualityofwiderresearchenvironmentatapplicants’organisation(s)[]Wedonothaveaformalsetofcriteria[]Other-pleasespecify:_________________________________________________

SectionIII-Evaluationcriteriaforgrantapplicationsandresearchoutcomes(continued)

18)Whatdistinction,ifany,doesyourorganisationmakebetweenOpenAccessandnon-OpenAccesspublicationswhenevaluatingthetrackrecordofagrantapplicant?()WeonlyconsidercompliantOpenAccesspublications()WeonlyconsidercompliantOpenAccesspublications,orthosecoveredbyanagreedexceptiontothepolicy()Weconsideralloutputs,butadditionalweightisattachedtocompliantOpenAccesspublications()WemakenodistinctionbetweenOpenAccessandnon-OpenAccesspublications19)DoesyourorganisationuseOpenScience-relatedcriteriaingrantassessment?E.g.thoseproposedintheOpenScienceCareerAssessmentMatrix(OS-CAM)

()Yes()NoPleaseprovidefurtherdetailsontheOpenScience-relatedgrantassessmentcriteriausedbyyourorganisation________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________20)Whichofthefollowingdeclarationssupportingtheresponsibleuseofmetricsinresearchevaluationhasyourorganisationsignedorexpressedpublicsupportfor(forinstance,throughanopenstatementorexpressionofsupportonthewebsiteoftherelevantinitiativeoryourownwebsite)?

Signedup

Expressedpublicsupport

Didnotexpresssupport

SanFranciscoDeclarationonResearchAssessment(DORA)

() () ()

LeidenManifestoforResearchMetrics

() () ()

TransparencyandOpennessPromotionGuidelines(TOP)

() () ()

InitiativeforOpenCitations(I4OC)

() () ()

21)Whatotherincentives,ifany,areinplacewithinyourorganisationtorewardgoodOpenSciencepractice?________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________22)Whatmechanismsandpractices,ifany,areinplacewithinyourorganisationtoeducatefunderevaluators/peerreviewersonOpenAccessorResearchData?________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

SectionIV-Reporting/monitoring/compliance

23)WhatworkflowsdoesyourorganisationusetoensurethattheOpenAccesspolicyiseffectivelyimplemented?(Pleasetickallthatapply)[]WepublishandregularlyupdateguidancedocumentsforOpenAccesstoresearchpublicationsandresearchdata[]WeembedOpenAccesspolicyrequirementsingrantfundingagreements[]WereviewreportsonOpenAccesscompliancefromgrantbeneficiaries[]Weaskgrantbeneficiariestosystematicallydepositresearchoutputsormetadatainaspecifiedrepository[]Wemonitordepositsinspecifiedrepositoriesthatmeetourcriteria[]WemonitornumbersofpublicationsonourownpublishingplatformorOAjournal[]Weindependentlymonitorcomplianceusingweb-scalesearchtoolsonaregularbasis(e.g.1Science,Dimensions.ai,Wizdom.ai)[]Other-pleasespecify:_________________________________________________24)DoesyourorganisationmonitorcompliancewithitsOpenAccessandResearchDatapolicies?

Yes No

OpenAccesspolicytoresearchpublication

() ()

ResearchDatapolicy

() ()

DMPsspecifically

() ()

Whatispreventingyourorganisationfrommonitoringthepolicy?(Pleasetickallthatapply)

OAPolicy

ResearchDatapolicy

Lackoftime [] []

Lackofresources

[] []

Lackofadequatemonitoringinfrastructureortools

[] []

Lackofmandatoryrequirementsworthmonitoring

[] []

HowdoesyourorganisationmonitorcompliancewiththeOpenAccess/ResearchDatapolicy(ies)?(Pleasetickallthatapply)

OpenAccesspolicy

ResearchDatapolicy

Bymonitoringdepositininstitutionalrepositoriesviaanational/internationalaggregator(e.g.

[] []

RCAAP,OpenAIRE)

Bymonitoringdepositinnationalrepositories(e.g.HAL)

[] []

Bymonitoringdepositinspecificsubjectrepositories(E.g.EuropePMC)

[] []

Monitoringusingweb-basedsearchtools(e.g.WebofScience,1Science,Dimensions.ai,Wizdom.ai)

[] []

Throughassessmentofdatamanagementplansbyinternalorexternalreviewers

[] []

Throughgrant-levelreportingbygrantrecipients

[] []

Throughhigh-levelstudiesofcompliance

[] []

Throughorganisation-levelreportingbyinstitutions

[] []

Throughspot-testingofresearchoutputs

[] []

Usinganonlineworkflowreportingservice(e.g.Chronos)

[] []

Usingexpertevaluatorstoassess

[] []

datamanagementdeliverables

25)Isyourorganisationconsideringtheintroductionof(additional)mechanismsformonitoringcomplianceinthefuture?()Yes()NoWhatmonitoringmechanismsareyouconsideringforthefuture?________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________26)Whataretheconsequencesofnon-compliancewiththeOpenAccess(OA)/ResearchData(RD)policy?Youshouldselectanoptionevenifithasneverbeenusedinpractice(Pleasetickallthatapply)

OpenAccesspolicy

ResearchDatapolicy

Authorsareadmonishedtocomplywiththepolicy

[] []

Institutionsareadmonishedtocomplywiththepolicy

[] []

Disbursementoffinalinstalmentofthegrantiswithhelduntilpolicycomplianceis

[] []

achieved

Thelevelofpolicycomplianceisconsideredintheassessmentofsubsequentgrantapplications(bydepartmentororganisation)

[] []

Thelevelofpolicycomplianceisconsideredintheassessmentofsubsequentgrantapplications(byindividualauthororPI)

[] []

Thelevelofpolicycomplianceisconsideredinthesubsequentallocationofopenaccessfunding(e.g.incaseofblockgrants)

[] []

Therearenoconsequences

[] []

SectionV-Plannedpolicychanges

27)WhenwasyourOpenAccesspolicylastreviewed?()Withinthelast12months()Withinthelast1-3years()Withinthelast4-5years()Morethan5yearsago28)WhenwouldyouexpectthenextreviewofyourOpenAccesspolicytotakeplace?()Withinthenext12months()Within1-3years()Within4-5years()Inmorethan5years29)Whatparticularaspectsofthepolicywouldyouexpectyournextreviewtofocuson?(Pleasetickallthatapply)[]APCcaps/limits[]Eligiblejournals(e.g.hybrid)[]Eligiblerepositoriesforself-archiving[]Embargoperiods[]Licensing[]Monitoringandcompliance[]Postingofpreprints[]Supportmechanismsforfundingpublicationcosts[]Technicalrequirementsandinfrastructure[]Other-pleasespecify:_________________________________________________[]Unsure

SectionV-Plannedpolicychanges(continued)

30)Whichofthefollowingbestdescribesyourorganisation’spositiononPlanS?()WearenotawareofPlanS()WeareawareofPlanSbuthavenotformulatedaposition()WearenotsupportiveofPlanS()WearebroadlysupportiveofPlanS,althoughweareconcernedaboutsomeprovisions()WearealigningourpolicywithPlanS()WearealreadyPlanSsignatories()Other-pleasespecify:_________________________________________________()Unsure

31)Whatisthemainrationalebehindyourorganisation’scurrentpositiononPlanS?Pleaseprovidefurtherdetailsasappropriate.________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________32)WhenwasyourResearchDatapolicylastreviewed?()Withinthelast12months()Withinthelast1-3years()Withinthelast4-5years()Morethan5yearsago33)WhenwouldyouexpectthenextreviewofyourResearchDatapolicytotakeplace?()Withinthenext12months()Within1-3years()Within4-5years()Inmorethan5years34)Whatparticularaspectsofthepolicywouldyouexpectyournextreviewtofocuson?(Pleasetickallthatapply)[]CompliancewiththeFAIRDataprinciples[]Dataissubjectedtoperiodicreview[]Depositingresearchdatainarepository[]Digitalpreservationofresearchdata[]Ethicaluse/reuseofdata[]Financialsupporttomeetdatamanagement/sharingcosts[]Followstheapproach‘asopenaspossible,asclosedasnecessary’[]Guidanceandsupport(e.g.FAQs,bestpracticeguides,toolkits,staff)[]Makingthedataopenwithinafixedtimeframe(e.g.oneyearfromprojectend,oruponpublication)[]ProductionofaDataManagementPlaninthegrantapplicationthatconsidersdatacreation,managementand/orsharing[]ProvisionofaDataAvailabilityStatementexplaininghowthedatacanbeaccessed(appendedtoallresearchpublications)[]Retainingresearchdataforaminimumlengthoftime[]Other-pleasespecify:_________________________________________________[]Unsure35)HowimportantismakingOpenAccessthedefaultforthegoodofresearch?()Veryimportant

()Important()Somewhatimportant()Notveryimportant()Notimportantatall36)Ifthereareanyfurthercommentsyouwouldliketoaddtoyourresponse,pleaseincludethesebelow.____________________________________________

insights into european research funder open policies and ... · synergies between member states,...

Documents