# Accessibility, sustainability, excellence: how to expand access to research publications/Implementation

​9. Implementation
9.1. Implementing our recommendations will require changes in policy by all the stakeholders in the research communications eco-system. More broadly, what we propose implies cultural change: a fundamental shift in how research is published and disseminated. That in turn implies a need to provide incentives but also to explain why change is necessary. The open access movement has had some success in raising awareness; but most members of the research community pay relatively little attention to the issues we highlight in this report, or the possible impacts on them and their work. Greater efforts are needed to increase awareness and understanding of these issues among researchers, and the reasons for the changes we propose.
9.2. But it is not just researchers—both as producers and consumers of research publications—who will face challenges. Policy-makers, funders, university managers, librarians, publishers and other intermediaries—indeed, all those who have a stake in the effective publishing and dissemination of research—need to develop a closer and shared understanding of their interlocking and interdependent roles; and to work together to find ways to make current arrangements work better. Shared dialogue about how best to promote innovation and cultural change is essential in the interests of all. Furthermore, since our recommendations are presented as a balanced package, it is critical that they are implemented in a balanced and sustainable way. That will imply continuing close contact and dialogue among representatives of each of the key groups: Government and funders; universities, research institutions and their expert librarians; publishers; and learned societies.
Government and research funders
9.3. A shift in policy towards the support of publication in open access or hybrid journals is at the heart of our recommendations. Nevertheless, for the reasons we have set out in this report, we believe that at least for the short to medium term, the Government, the Research Councils and the Higher Education Funding Councils should seek increases in access through all three mechanisms—open access journals, extensions to licensing, and repositories. They will need to consider how best to fund increases through the mixed model we recommend. As we noted above, funds could be released in a number of ways: through the provision of additional money from the public purse; by diversion of funds from the direct support of research towards the costs of publication and dissemination; or by bearing down on the costs of publishers and other intermediaries. We believe that it should be a mix of all three. But a clear commitment to meet the costs of an innovative and sustainable research communications system is essential.
9.4. In order to provide effective support for publication in open access and hybrid journals, funders should work together to ensure that transparent and flexible arrangements are put in place to meet the costs of APCs, and they should not ​assume that all APCs will be at the level currently charged by some of the larger open access journals such as PLoSOne. The arrangements should allow universities to build up from both Research Council and Funding Council grants, as well as other sources, funds to meet those costs. Any rules relating to the use of such funds should be as flexible and light touch as possible, and should seek to minimise transaction costs. Funders should also offer as much flexibility as possible to universities on the payment of APCs for publications arising from collaborations across institutional and geographical boundaries, where more than one funder is involved, and where no external source of funding has been provided.
9.5. Through the Funders Forum, the Government, the Research Councils and the Higher Education Funding Councils should also work together to discuss with other funders in the public, charitable and business sectors how best to promote and fund increases in access through publication in open access and hybrid journals.
9.6. In order to increase access in the short to medium term, we also recommend that the Government and research funders should work together with universities and with publishers to extend and rationalise current licence arrangements for higher education and the NHS. We believe it should be possible at modest cost to provide access free at the point of use to the great majority of journals for the benefit of all staff and students in both sectors. Government should also work together with all the interested parties, including university finance officers, to find ways to reduce the burden of VAT payments for e-journals, and thus to reduce the disincentive to eliminate the wasteful costs of producing journals in both print and digital formats.
9.7. Government should also facilitate discussions between representative bodies in the public, business and voluntary sectors on the one hand, and publishers on the other, to find ways of developing licence agreements to provide access to relevant journals and other content across key parts of those sectors which do not currently enjoy such access; and ways of funding such agreements.
9.8. A key issue for funders, requiring careful consideration, will be the precise configuration of policies relating to the role of repositories. We see repositories fulfilling a subsidiary, but important role, for the short to medium term alongside open access journals and extensions to licensing. But it is important that they do so in a sustainable way, in the interests of the research communications system as a whole. That will require further investment in developing the UK-wide infrastructure of repositories. JISC may have a significant role to play here in its work to enhance integration and interoperability.
9.9. Policies relating to embargo periods and other restrictions on the versions of articles that are published in subscription-based journals and which are made accessible via repositories—and on the uses that can be made of them—will need especially careful consideration. We understand the aspiration for rapid and unrestricted access, and we recognise that embargo periods and other restrictions serve to limit access. Hence we understand the case for keeping such restrictions to ​the minimum. Nevertheless, we endorse the conclusion of the Open Road report that policy-makers should be cautious about pushing for reductions in embargo periods and other restrictions on use and re-use to the point where the sustainability of the underlying publishing model is put at risk.
9.10. Where appropriate levels of dedicated funding are provided to meet the costs of open access publishing, it is reasonable to expect that researchers should adopt open access as the default mode of publishing their findings. In that case, it may be reasonable for funders to require that embargo periods are shorter than twelve months. Such a requirement would need, however, to be phased in over a period of time which allows journals to develop open access routes where they do not already exist.
9.11. Where dedicated funding is not provided to support open access publications, and therefore researchers are unable to use this route, we believe that it would be unreasonable to require that embargo periods are shorter than twelve months. For in that case, with no direct funding support for an open access publication, it would be unreasonable to put the sustainability of subscription-based journals at risk. Moreover, in subject areas where the half-life of the articles in each issue of a journal is several years, there may be a case for a longer period
9.12. These issues are of particular importance for UK learned societies, as they seek ways to sustain their high-status journals, and also their scholarly and related activities. They are critical for the humanities and social sciences too, where open access has made relatively little progress to date, and there are doubts as to whether high-status open access journals are sustainable. We believe that there is considerable scope for the development of open access routes in these disciplines, and we do not wish to see a division over the longer term between those disciplines that embrace open access and those that do not. However, since the pace of change may be slower in some disciplines than others, subscription-based journals are likely to remain a significant part of the landscape for some time to come, alongside the development of open access via repositories. But embargo periods that are too short will put the journals at severe risk. Government and funders should therefore be wary of pushing too hard, too fast.
9.13. For all the reasons we have highlighted above and in the rest of this report, we recommend that the Government should take a lead in the European Union and in other international forums in promoting moves towards open access in the way we recommend in this report. A key goal should be to sustain continuing development of an environment that supports and encourages innovation from both established players and new entrants, in the interests of researchers and all who have an interest in the results of their work.
Universities
9.14. Universities have a key role to play in implementing our proposals. Some universities have already adopted policies to promote or require open access for ​research publications, either via repositories, or (less frequently) through open access publishing funds. It is likely that most universities will respond to changes in Research Council and Funding Council policies by developing and implementing their own policies and systems to promote and support open access, each in accordance with their individual institutional missions and profiles.
9.15. First, universities should establish funds to meet the costs of APCs for open access publishing. A key source of the moneys to flow into such funds will be the amounts identified to support APCs in the grants received from the Research Councils and other funders such as the Wellcome Trust. But universities will need to identify other sources in order to meet the costs of APCs for publications that result from research not supported by such funders. Institutions that receive QR block grant from one of the Funding Councils could use that grant—as well as other resources available to them—to establish publication funds; and they could link provision for APCs through publication funds to transfers from library budgets, as the need for subscriptions falls. But there will be a time lag—because big deals typically last for three years, but also because the UK is likely to be ahead of the rest of the world in take-up of open access publishing—before there is significant scope to reduce expenditure on subscriptions without cutting the number of journals and articles to which their staff and students have access.
9.16. The size of the fund will be related to projections as to the amount of research income that the university expects to receive, in research grants and from other sources; the number of articles and other publications expected to be produced and for which an APC—in full or in part—might be required; and the average level of the likely APCs. There may be a need for a large contingency in the early years, as new policies and arrangements begin to take effect.
9.17. Universities will need to consider carefully, and to consult with their staff about, the policies and procedures surrounding publication funds. For researchers will be nervous about the implications of giving university and departmental managers a greater say in where and how researchers publish their work: the differences in cost of publishing in one journal rather than another will for the first time (outside those domains where page charges are a common feature of publishing) become a significant issue in decision-making. Universities should therefore consult with their staff and develop policies and procedures to set up and administer funds to meet the costs of APCs. Issues they will have to consider will include
    i. whether they should promote publication in open access journals as the principal or default channel for all research publications
    ii. the amount to be taken from QR and other sources (in addition to Research Council and Wellcome Trust grants) to establish the institutional fund for the payment of APCs
    iii. whether a single fund is to be established and administered centrally, or a series of funds for each school or faculty; and where responsibility for the administration of the fund(s) will lie
    iv. the criteria to be adopted in deciding on the journals in which publications should be placed, especially in a context where price becomes a consideration
    v. how support for publication should be integrated with other aspects of research management, for example the development of research capacity, and support for early-career researchers
    vi. policies and procedures relating to the provision of funds to support publication of articles judged to be not of the highest quality
    vii. policies relating to payment of APCs when articles are published in collaboration with researchers from other institutions
    viii. how to minimise transaction costs while maintaining proper accountability.
9.18. Second, universities should through Universities UK (UUK), the Russell Group, the 1994 Group, the University Alliance, Million +, and Guild HE consider, in concert with their funders, the NHS, and representatives of publishers, the case for rationalising and extending current licensing arrangements. The aim should be to provide licensed access to the great majority of relevant journals across the whole of the HE and health sectors, so long as that can be achieved at reasonable cost.
9.19. Third, universities should continue to develop their repositories so that they provide effective means of enhancing links between published research and underlying data; of preserving a wide range of digital material for which satisfactory preservation channels do not otherwise exist; and of providing and enhancing access to reports, working papers and other grey literature produced by researchers, and also to dissertations and theses.
9.20. Finally, universities should work with publishers and with JISC Collections to examine the feasibility of providing licensed access to small research-intensive businesses and other organisations with which they have close relationships.
9.21. We envisage that UUK and the mission groups will provide forums for universities to consider all these issues collectively, and that they will offer advice and guidance on them. Nevertheless, specific policies and procedures will be tailored to the needs of individual institutions, in accordance with their profile and mission.
Publishers
9.22. Publishers have indicated that they will work together with the Research Councils, the Funding Councils, universities and others to ensure that the shift towards publishing in open access and hybrid journals supported by APCs can be implemented effectively; and with repositories to help them to provide an effective complement to the journals and articles made available on publishers’ platforms.
​ 9.23. Publishers of subscription-based journals will face a number of challenges in the mixed model environment we recommend. Many of them are already considering a transition towards open access publishing, including hybrid journals. But in the new environment, that will become a much more urgent issue. The new policies and procedures we are supporting and promoting put the UK in the vanguard of moves towards open access, and we have stressed the need for international action. But subscription-based publishers will have to decide whether to respond to the initiatives in the UK by providing an open access option for those journals where it is not currently available, or to shift at least some of their journals wholly to open access, on what timescale, and at what level of APC. They will have to reach difficult judgments as to the pace of change—in the UK and the rest of the world—in the different disciplines they cover. They will also have to consider the risks inherent in decisions on whether—and if so when and how—to move to an open access or hybrid model.
9.24. Decisions on how best to proceed may be particularly difficult for publishers—learned societies prominent among them—of prestigious journals in the humanities and social sciences, where rates of publication and other factors may mean that APCs have to be set at a relatively high level. All learned societies will have to consider the risks associated with moves to open access, and the extent to which they rely on their publishing revenues to support their wider activities. Some publishers, especially in the humanities and social sciences, may decide to retain their subscription-based journals for some time to come. Although understandable that approach is not risk free; as more publications internationally are on an open access basis, the remaining subscription-based journals could find it more difficult to attract the best papers, with long term implications for their income as well as their quality.
9.25. A large-scale shift to open access publishing will also require publishers to develop—in consultation with their customers in universities and other research institutions, and also with other intermediaries such as subscription agents—more efficient arrangements for the payment of APCs on a much bigger scale than hitherto, in order to minimise transaction costs. They should also consult with other players in the research communications landscape on such matters as the arrangements for the payment of APCs for publications with authors from different countries and institutions; and for reducing or waiving APCs where authors are not affiliated to an institution that can meet the cost on their behalf. It is also essential that—particularly where the hybrid model is adopted—effective measures are put in place to ensure that readers and institutions are made aware that the journals in question, or specific articles within them, are accessible free of charge. Publishers should also provide clear information about the balance between the revenues provided in APCs and in subscriptions to hybrid journals.
9.26. All publishers should continue to experiment with ways to add value to their content in key areas including moves towards ‘semantic publishing’ and linkages ​between research articles and underlying data. They will also need to consider the extent to which they can reduce or eliminate current restrictions on rights of use and re-use. Publishers of open access and hybrid journals should be able to adopt a relaxed attitude to such restrictions. For subscription-based content, however, the issues are more complex, and it would not be reasonable to expect publishers of such content to adopt a CC-BY or similar licence which would allow commercial re-use of the content they publish. Subject to any legislative changes following the Hargreaves review, all publishers will have to consider what arrangements they will put in place to make their content available for text and data mining.
9.27. In seeking to extend licensed access to their journals, all subscription-based publishers should commit themselves to support for the proposal to provide on-site walk-in access to the great majority of journals through public libraries. Discussions are already under way with representatives of public libraries on how to make that initiative work to best effect. We trust that those discussions will be concluded speedily and successfully.
9.28. Subscription-based publishers should work alongside representatives of universities, JISC Collections and the NHS to consider the feasibility and cost of licences to cover the whole of the HE and health sectors; and of licences that would allow universities to provide access to SMEs with which they have a working relationship. More broadly, they should consult with the representative organisations for the public, voluntary and business sectors on the scope for licences that would cover a range of organisations in those sectors, including the costs and how they would be met.
Learned Societies
9.29. Learned societies which publish journals will have to consider all the issues for publishers outlined above. But since most of them are considerably smaller than the large commercial publishers, and they generally operate with small reserves, they are less able to change business models speedily. The risks for them during a transition period that may last for some years thus tend to be greater. The problem may be especially acute for some societies that run high-status journals where the majority of revenues come from readers and their institutions overseas, but the majority of their authors are from the UK.
9.30. At a fundamental level, societies will have to consider how best to fund their scholarly and other activities, and the extent to which it is prudent to rely on the surpluses generated by publishing. It would be wrong to over-protect societies and their publications, or to favour them over other publishers. But funders and policy makers should be aware of the risk that any policies that may undermine the viability of subscription-based journals may also endanger the core activities of key learned societies, and the support they provide to the UK research community and its work.
​ An implementation strategy
9.31. Our report and recommendations envisage a sustained and complex period of transition, during which there will be a mixed economy with a range of channels to publication, and for access to publications. A wide range of publishers—commercial and not-for-profit, including learned societies—will continue to offer subscription-based titles, but also an increasing number of hybrid and fully open access journals; and the use of repositories is likely to grow.
9.32. We stress that our mixed model represents a balanced approach to increasing access to research publications. Implementation will be an intricate process, and transition to a fully open access world will take a number of years. If the mixed model is to develop over the next few years in a sustainable way, it will require co-ordination and the active engagement of funders, universities, publishers and learned societies, as well as Government. No single interest or stakeholder group in isolation can deliver a sustainable system, or manage all the risks associated with rapid change and transition.
9.33. In order to sustain the confidence of all parties and stakeholders, it will be important during this process to gather reliable, high-quality indicators on the key features of the changing landscape, relating, for example, to costs, the take-up of different publishing strategies and their outcomes, and the return on public funding. Such indicators might include expenditure on APCs and subscriptions; average levels of APCs paid in the UK; the degree to which subscription budgets are switched to pay APCs; the proportion of UK and overseas publications that are published open access; and the number that are available in institutional or subject repositories. The precise configuration of the indicators, and the methodologies for gathering and analysing them, should be agreed between publishers, funding bodies, and representatives of the research community. But there will be need for co-ordination, starting with the identification of a neutral body which can work in the public interest, with the confidence of all parties and at minimal cost to gather and analyse the data. JISC may have a role to play here.
9.34. The key point is that formal arrangements should be put in place to monitor the process of transition, to ensure such co-ordination and active engagement from all the key parties, and to consider appropriate measures as issues arise. Such arrangements could take a number of forms: a standing group of key representatives, or a commitment to regular review, again involving all parties. But we are clear that some formal arrangements are essential, and at the very least we propose that the Group should reconvene in a year’s time to assess progress. The risks to the performance and standing of the UK research community are too great to be allowed to drift through lack of appropriate attention. The continuing development of an effective and sustainable research communications system is too important to be left to chance.