Open Access Task Force – Implementation
Team Progress Report
2020-11-09
Executive summary

OATF-IT Background
Members
Status of individual recommendations

Recommendation 1: All-campus OA policy
Recommendation 2: OA policy for monographs
Recommendation 3: Clarify and consolidate thesis holds policies
Recommendation 4: OA requirement for internal MIT grants
Recommendation 5: Open Data Fund
Recommendation 6: Develop a data registry
Recommendation 7: Funds for OA initiatives
Recommendation 8: Increase the impact of open educational content
Recommendation 9: Code and software
Recommendation 10: DLC plans to encourage open sharing
Recommendation 11: Recognition for data sharing
Recommendation 12: Institutional advocacy for open science
Recommendation 13: MIT’s International Advisory Committee
Recommendation 14: Form OATF recommendations implementation team1

Executive summary
This report outlines the progress to date of the Open Access Task Force Implementation Team(OATF-IT), first convened in December 2019 to prioritize, shepherd, and support the ​final
recommendations (October 2019)​ of the MIT-wide ​Ad Hoc Task Force on Open Access to MIT’s
Research ​(OATF). The OATF launched in 2017 to update and revise the Institute’s policies andpractices around open publications, data, educational materials, and software. The OATF-IT is
actively working on the following recommendations:-

Recommendation 1: All-campus OA policy-

Recommendation 3: Clarify and consolidate thesis holds policies-

Recommendation 6: Develop a data registry-

Recommendation 9: Code and software-

Recommendation 10: DLC plans to encourage open sharing-

Recommendation 12: Institutional advocacy for open science-

Recommendation 14: Form OATF recommendations implementation team

Owing to a variety of reasons, including financial and resource constraints, reordering ofInstitute priorities, and diverted attention due to COVID-19 response management demands,
work on the following recommendations has been delayed:-

Recommendation 2: OA policy for monographs-

Recommendation 4: OA requirement for internal MIT grants-

Recommendation 5: Open Data Fund-

Recommendation 7: Funds for OA initiatives-

Recommendation 8: Increase the impact of open educational content-

Recommendation 11: Recognition for data sharing-

Recommendation 13: MIT’s International Advisory Committee

Many of these recommendations require institutional support of some kind. The particularneeds for each recommendation have been noted in the document body.

2

OATF-IT Background
In July 2017, MIT Provost Martin Schmidt charged an Institute-wide ​Ad Hoc Task Force on Open
Access to MIT’s Research ​(OATF) with exploring ways that MIT should update and revise its
current open access (OA) policies around publications, data, software, and educational
materials. The goal was to “further the Institute’s mission of disseminating the fruits of its
research and scholarship as widely as possible.”
A draft set of recommendations was ​released in March 2019​ for public comment, and thisvaluable input provided by the community was incorporated into the task force’s ​final
recommendations​ ​released in October 2019​. An OATF Implementation Team (OATF-IT), whosecharge is to prioritize, shepherd, and support the final recommendations, began its work in
December 2019.
Since its kick-off, the OATF-IT has met 16 times, at an intended frequency of every two weeks.
Chris Bourg initially chaired the team, with Amy Nurnberger joining her as co-chair in June
2020. Lindsey Weeramuni and Jay Wilcoxson joined the team in late January 2020. The world
has changed dramatically in the last months, as the response to the COVID-19 pandemic has
required the entirety of the team to work from various states of lockdown. Despite thesechallenges, we have continued to meet and have made significant progress on many
recommendations.
The team’s first step was to prioritize action on implementing the recommendations andwhether work should, broadly, happen Now, Next, or Later. The next section of this report
includes reasoning for the timeline designation, as well as accomplishments, next steps, andneeds.

Members
Peter Bebergal, Technology Licensing Office

Karen Shirer, Office of the VP for Research

Chris Bourg, MIT Libraries

Lindsey Weeramuni, Open Learning

Katharine Dunn, MIT Libraries

Jaren Wilcoxson, Office of the GeneralCounselAmy Nurnberger, MIT Libraries
Marianna Pierce, Human Resources3

Status of individual recommendations
Starting in December 2019, the OATF-IT prioritized ​14 recommendations ​and began work on
implementation. The coronavirus pandemic has, in some cases, forced us to delay action or
shift our focus due to time, attention, and resource constraints.
This section describes the current stage of activity on each recommendation, whether it issomething we are working on Now, Next, or Later; our reasoning for assigning that stage; what
has been accomplished or what the next steps are; and what is needed for successful
implementation.

Recommendation

Status1: All-campus OA policy

Now

2: OA policy for monographs

Later

3: Clarify and consolidate thesis holds policies

Now

4: OA requirement for internal MIT grants

Later

5: Open Data Fund

Later

6: Develop a data registryNow

7: Funds for OA initiatives

Later

8: Increase the impact of open educational content

Next

9: Code and software

Now / Next

10: DLC plans to encourage open sharing

Now

11: Recognition for data sharing

Later

12: Institutional advocacy for open science

Now

13: MIT’s International Advisory Committee

Next

14: Form OATF recommendations implementation teamNow

4Policy recommendations

Recommendation 1: All-campus OA policy
Adopt an all-campus open access policy, granting MIT non-exclusive permission to openly
disseminate scholarly articles written by any MIT author.
● Status: Now● Reasoning: This is a revision of an existing policy, MIT’s 2009 Faculty OA Policy,
extending its coverage from faculty to any MIT author.
● Accomplishments/Next steps:○ Drafted language for this revision.
○ Circulating draft policy language among the OATF and other stakeholders for
feedback.
○ Completed estimations for resources necessary to extend existing infrastructure
supporting this increased coverage.
○ Will be putting forward revised policy for discussion and acceptance by theappropriate Institute groups. Because this is an instance of applying existing
faculty policy to non-faculty, it does not require a vote of the faculty. If accepted,
it will be added to ​Policies & Procedures, 13.0 Information Policies​.
● Needs:○ Review, discussion, and approval by appropriate Institute committees, including
Dean’s Group and Academic Council.
○ Resourcing for extended infrastructure and for marketing and socializing thispolicy revision.

Recommendation 2: OA policy for monographs
Adopt an open access policy for scholarly monographs, granting MIT non-exclusive permission
to openly disseminate digital versions of monographs written by any MIT author. Establish an
Open Monograph Fund to support MIT authors.
● Status: Later● Reasoning: For maximum impact, this recommendation would require significant
funding from departments, schools, and/or the provost, and the financial constraints
associated with COVID-19 make it more difficult to prioritize this funding.
● Accomplishments/Next steps: Completed estimate of funding need.
5● Needs: Funding at the rate of approximately $15,000-$20,000 per monograph andapproximately 30 monographs per year.

Recommendation 3: Clarify and consolidate thesis holds policies
Clarify, consolidate, and publish the policies regarding thesis holds/embargoes on the MIT
Policies website. The policy should specify that requests for a hold/embargo of longer than
three months must be approved by the Vice President for Research, in consultation with theTechnology Licensing Office and/or the Office of Graduate Education, and must be supported
by evidence of a pending patent application, a book contract requiring an embargo, and/or
evidence of extenuating circumstances related to safety, confidentiality, or national security
interests.
● Status: Now● Reasoning: This is a consolidation of currently available guidance and a revision of an
existing policy (​13.1.3​), which now designates where to request a hold or restriction on
the public distribution of a thesis.
● Accomplishments/Next steps:○ Drafted language for a revision to 13.1.3.
○ Circulating draft policy language among stakeholders for feedback.
○ Consolidating guidance and information resources, focusing on the Office ofGraduate Education, Technology Licensing Office, and the MIT Libraries as themain sources for these.
○ Will put forward revised policy for discussion and approval by the appropriate
Institute groups.
● Needs:○ Designation of an Academic Council subgroup for approval of proposed
revisions.
○ Direction to departments that websites should point students to the guidance on
the websites of the Office of Graduate Education, Technology Licensing Office,and the MIT Libraries.

Recommendation 4: OA requirement for internal MIT grants
Consider adding an open access requirement to all existing and new internal MIT research grant
programs that calls for immediate open access publishing of articles by grant recipients.

6

● Status: Later● Reasoning: Lack of time and attention to analyze and build consensus. We have yet to
identify a champion for this recommendation.
● Accomplishments/Next steps: None available at this time
● Needs:○ Opportunity to consult with the community to understand the impacts ofimplementing this recommendation and their needs for effectively managing thischange.
○ Institutional time and attention dedicated to championing and modeling open
access behavior. This may be encouraged by the potential federal executive
order for a “​national open access policy​” that would remove 12-month embargo
periods from public access to publications resulting from federal funds.

Infrastructure and Resource Recommendations

Recommendation 5: Open Data FundTo support the open sharing of data created and originating at MIT (not pre-existing data ordata acquired from external sources) the Institute should create an Open Data Fund to support
projects based on FAIR Data Principles (Findable, Accessible, Interoperable, Reusable).
● Status: Later● Reasoning: Lack of time and attention to analyze and build consensus. We have yet to
identify a champion for this recommendation.
● Accomplishments/Next steps: OATF-IT has developed a working definition for “research
data:”
Research data means data in the form of facts, observations, images, computer
program results, recordings, measurements, or experiences on which a research
output — an argument, theory, test or hypothesis, or other output — is based.
The term “research data” relates to data generated, collected, or used during
research projects, and in some cases may include the research output itself. Data
may be numerical, descriptive, visual, or tactile. It may be raw or primary (e.g.,
direct from measurement or collection) or derived from primary data forsubsequent analysis or interpretation (e.g., cleaned up or as an extract from alarger data set), or derived from existing sources where the rights may be heldby others. Data may be cleaned or processed, analyzed, or published and7archived, and may be held in any format or media. In many disciplines,
understanding the research data may by necessity require inclusion of otherresearch products such as software, algorithms, models, and/or parameters thatare processed or trained by, or used with, raw or primary data to arrive at the
research outcome. A complete research data package may also incorporate
documentation required to understand the data and/or its use, in addition to theraw data to which the software, algorithm, or model is applied. It should be
noted that intellectual property rights associated with the various elements of acomplete research data package may be managed separately or distinctly fromeach other.1
This definition will also be used in working on Recommendations 6, 9, 10, 11, 12, and 13.
● Needs: Institutional time and attention dedicated to modeling open research behavior
and to financially support open sharing and dissemination of knowledge.

Recommendation 6: Develop a data registry
To support the long-term sustainability and discoverability of open data, the MIT Libraries
should investigate developing and maintaining a data registry that indexes MIT-created data
and links data to publications, grants, and other outputs and supporting materials.
● Status: Now● Reasoning: This was a recognized need of the Institute and a planned Libraries project.
● Accomplishments/Next steps:○ Producing a pilot of this resource; partnering with a limited number of researchgroups on development and inclusion.
○ Initiated conversations with Institute stakeholders around institutionallyconsistent approaches to data use agreements, as both a receiver and atransmitter, and to data licensing.
● Needs:○ Coordination with implementation of other recommendations (e.g., DLC plans[10], open data fund [5], recognition for data sharing [11], open scienceadvocacy [12]), that will incentivize data publication and use of the registry.

1

This definition was adapted from the following sources:
https://www.mopp.qut.edu.au/D/D_02_08.jsp#D_02_08.04.mdoc​, ​https://www.data.cam.ac.uk/university-policy​,
https://www.energy.gov/datamanagement/doe-policy-digital-research-data-management-glossary8

○ For maximum impact, this recommendation requires incentive structures that
motivate data producers and contributors to contribute to the data registry,either directly or via use of research data repositories. This will highlight theirdata production and distribution, amplify their research results and impact, anddemonstrate the breadth of research conducted by their DLC.
○ From the Research Data Registry (RDR) - Planning Stage Report, “Success of theRDR depends upon obtaining buy-in of the Institute administration and faculty,
particularly at the departmental level and in the form of accepted practices andan incentive structure. The OATF-IT will be critical in defining and executing aplan to obtain buy-in from the MIT departments, create an incentive structure,and not impose an undue burden on our researchers without sufficient
resources.”

Recommendation 7: Funds for OA initiatives
The Institute should provide funding for open access initiatives on two critical fronts: 1) support
for open access work and initiatives spearheaded by MIT scholars; and 2) support for open
access infrastructure, such as tools and services that reduce the burden on and/or create
incentives for authors to openly share their work.
● Status: Later● Reasoning: Lack of time and attention to analyze and build consensus. We have yet to
identify a champion for this recommendation.
● Accomplishments/Next steps: None available at this time.
● Needs: Institutional time and attention dedicated to modeling open access behavior andto financially support open sharing and dissemination of knowledge.

Recommendation 8: Increase the impact of open educational content
Educational materials generated at MIT exist in a number of settings, including but not limited
to, OpenCourseWare, MITx, MIT xPro, J-WEL, MIT professional schools, and MIT graduate andundergraduate courses. We are pursuing clarity on the scope of these recommendations withregard to these settings and their potential application to or extension beyond
https://openlearning.mit.edu/​.
8.a. Publication standard

9Adopt and promote a publication standard (addressing file types, access controls, etc.), such as
the standard currently being developed by MITx/edX for educational materials, that ensuresopen access and interoperability.
● Status: Next
● Reasoning: The referenced “standard currently being developed,” does not exist. Workis being done to adopt ​Common Cartridge​, which facilitates a technical exchange oflearning object metadata but does not create a standard for initial publication ofmaterials. This has delayed progress on this recommendation.
● Accomplishments/Next steps: Identified key stakeholders.
● Needs: Opening conversations on scope and intentions with MIT’s Open Learning Senior
Management.
8.b. Optimize learning management systems (LMS) for “open”
Optimize the design of current and future MIT learning management systems (including Stellar)
so creators can easily make materials as open as possible. One example would be to make classmaterials available by default to all MIT students, not merely those enrolled in the class, whileproviding instructors the ability to choose other sharing options.
● Status: Next
● Reasoning: MIT is currently transitioning its LMS to Canvas as part of responding to
COVID-19 conditions. This has limited the amount of attention available and priority
given to associated LMS optimizations.
● Accomplishments/Next steps: Identified key stakeholders.
● Needs:○ Attention, willingness, and space to pursue these discussions from technologicaland philosophical perspectives.
○ A better understanding of the IP and copyright implications for both facultymaterials and third-party materials that are often present on Canvas or Stellar
pages.
8.c. Specify licenses and processes for open licensing of educational materials

10Specify approved open access licenses and licensing procedures for MIT publication of
educational materials, recognizing that these materials may incorporate content, code, andinteractive elements.
● Status: Next
● Reasoning: The identification and designationtion of appropriate licenses for open
education materials (OERs) requires an investment in initial conversations that stillneeds to be made. Given the prioritization of the COVID-19 response, there has been
insufficient time and attention available for this investment.
● Accomplishments/Next steps: Identified a selection of appropriate stakeholders.
● Needs: Attention, willingness, and space to pursue these discussions from bothtechnological and philosophical perspectives.
8.d. Streamlined open license educational materials publication paths
Provide streamlined paths for publishing all educational material under open licenses on
platforms like MIT OpenCourseWare (OCW).
● Status: Next
● Reasoning: Development of the NextGen OCW is underway. The ​Open Learning Libraryhas already been launched and is being built out. Both projects create streamlined paths
for publication of educational materials. Materials are available under a variety ofterms, which are often obscured.
● Accomplishments/Next steps: Initiate conversations about taking advantage of thesedevelopment and buildout projects to make open licensing an easier choice for faculty.
● Needs: Attention, willingness, and space to pursue these discussions from bothtechnological and philosophical perspectives.
8.e. Improve discoverability of open educational materials
Adopt and promote tools and services to enhance the discoverability of open educational
materials.
● Status: Next
● Reasoning: Development of the NextGen OCW is underway. The Open Learning Libraryhas already been launched and is being built out. Both projects create streamlined paths

11for publication of educational materials. Materials are available under a variety ofterms, which are often obscured.
● Accomplishments/Next steps: Initiate conversations about taking advantage of thesedevelopment and buildout projects to enhance discoverability of open educational
materials.
● Needs: Attention, willingness, and space to pursue these discussions from bothtechnological and philosophical perspectives.

Recommendation 9: Code and software
Encourage more open sharing of code and reduce the potential negative impact of theproliferation of software patents on entrepreneurship and innovation.
9.a. and b. Recommended open software licenses and guidance on their use
Develop a set of recommended open licenses for software produced by MIT. Create andpublicize guidelines, policies, and practices for publishing code under open source licenses.
● Status: Now● Reasoning: The sub-elements a. and b. of Recommendation 9 work in concert and build
on established work by TLO.
● Accomplishments/Next steps:○ Identified the appropriate stakeholders within TLO.
○ Will be engaging in conversations about how existing information and guidance
can be made more robust, visible, and accessible to the MIT community.
● Needs: Attention, willingness, and space to pursue these discussions from bothtechnological and philosophical perspectives.
9.c. Review software licensing practices to ensure they promote innovation and encourage
MIT authors who wish to distribute code openly under popular open source licenses.
● Status: Next/Later● Reasoning: We are pursuing clarity on the scope of this recommendation with regard tocurrent TLO approach, practice, and policy.
● Accomplishments/Next steps:○ Identified the appropriate stakeholders within TLO.
○ Engaging in conversations about this recommendation’s motivation, intent, andscope and how it integrates with current TLO responsibilities and processes.

12

● Needs: Institutional attention, willingness, and space to pursue these discussions fromboth technological and philosophical perspectives.

Advocacy and Awareness Recommendations

Recommendation 10: DLC plans to encourage open sharing
The Provost should direct the leader of each department, lab, and center (DLC) to develop aplan to encourage and support the open sharing of research, as appropriate for theirdiscipline(s).
● Status: Now● Reasoning: Despite limited time and attention, we have been able to initiate some
preparatory work. Much of the main body of work has been delayed owing to shifts infaculty and institutional priorities resulting from management of COVID-19.
● Accomplishments/Next steps:○ Preparing a draft template for departmental plans, using as guidance a toolkit
created by ​The National Academies’ Roundtable on Aligning Incentives for OpenScience​.
○ Will be sharing draft templates with three pilot DLCs (including Linguistics,
whose faculty have already agreed to participate) and iterate on the best
approach for their communities, incorporating these learnings into futureversions of plan templates.
○ Will be approaching the Provost with a plan for carrying this recommendation
forward once a satisfactory set of templates is developed.
● Needs:○ Two more DLCs to pilot the process of creating a plan to encourage open
sharing.
○ Institutional will and senior faculty commitment to model open researchbehavior and to support open sharing and distribution of knowledge.

Recommendation 11: Recognition for data sharing
MIT should advocate for greater recognition of and credit to researchers who share data,
including those who prepare data for sharing.
● Status: Later● Reasoning: Lack of time and attention to analyze and build consensus. We have yet to
identify a champion for this recommendation.

13

● Accomplishments/Next steps: None available at this time.
● Needs:○ For maximum impact, this recommendation requires incentive structures thatrecognize data producers and contributors and motivate them to develop anddistribute data in ways that promote open research. This will demonstrate thebreadth of research conducted by their DLC, amplifying their research results
and impact.
○ Funding and resources to support the recommended award.

Recommendation 12: Institutional advocacy for open science
MIT should continue to collaborate with peers across academia and elsewhere to advance open
science and should continue to consistently advocate with the federal government in support ofpolicies and legislation that advance the Institute’s commitment to open access to research aspart of its mission.
● Status: Now● Reasoning: MIT has collaborated and advocated to advance open science and researchin the past and will likely continue to do so.
● Accomplishments/Next steps:○ Participation in the ​AAU/APLU meeting on Advancing Public Access to Research
Data​ in February 2020.
○ Participation in the ​NASEM Roundtable on Aligning Incentives for Open Science○ MIT Libraries’ response to the Office of Science and Technology Policy (OSTP) RFI“Public Access to Peer-Reviewed Scholarly Publications, Data and Code Resulting
from Federally Funded Research” (​2020-03189​), endorsed by MIT’s Committee
on the Library System.
○ MIT Libraries’ response to the OSTP RFC “Desirable Characteristics of
Repositories for Managing and Sharing Data Resulting From Federally Funded
Research” (​2020-00689​).
○ MIT Libraries’ response to the NIH RFC “DRAFT NIH Policy for Data Management
and Sharing and Supplemental DRAFT Guidance” (​2019-24529​).
○ MIT Libraries and Harvard Library provided ​recommendations for Plan S
implementation​.
○ Continue to seek out opportunities to collaborate with peers to advance open
research, to advocate for policies and legislation that advance open access to14

research, and to advance the Institute’s commitment to open research as part ofits mission.
● Needs: A continued commitment to actively seek out opportunities to support the
principles and actions conducive to the realization of an open research ecosystem.

Recommendation 13: MIT’s International Advisory Committee
MIT’s International Advisory Committee should include the topic of open access and open
science in their deliberations on the Institute’s international engagements, including thecomplex issues and tensions between MIT’s commitment to and policies regarding open
sharing of research outputs and a desire to maintain intellectual and competitive control.
● Status: Next
● Reasoning: Limited time and attention and shifted faculty and institutional priorities
related to management of COVID-19, have delayed activity on this recommendation.
● Accomplishments/Next steps: We plan on contacting the interim chair of this committee
to further discuss this recommendation.
● Needs: Information on this committee, its scope of activities, and how to access its
deliberations.

Recommendation 14: Form OATF recommendations implementation team
The Provost and Vice President for Research should appoint an implementation team toprioritize, shepherd, and support the above recommendations.
● Status: Now● Reasoning: There is no time like the present for making MIT better!
● Accomplishments/Next steps: This team has been instantiated as the OATF-IT, has been
meeting as indicated above, and has made progress on implementing theserecommendations as indicated in this report.
● Needs: The OATF-IT has started the work of implementing the OATF recommendations.
In the process, we have found that for many of these recommendations, successful
implementation will also require significant faculty buy-in, and in some cases,
institutional and/or DLC-level support and resources. Different recommendations will
require different types of investment from different areas of senior administration. As
the OATF-IT continues its work, we will continue to request support. It is our intention
to make these requests as clearly defined as possible.

15