The benefits of Author’s Rights
Retention for Researchers,
Universities and beyond
Japanese Open Science Summit (JOSS)
20th June 2024
Sally Rumsey | cOAlition S Ambassador

Hello and thank you for inviting me to join this meeting1

I’m going to start by taking a look at cOAlition S andPlan S

cOAlition S is a group of 28 research funders,charitable foundations, and others, from acrossEurope, the US, and beyond. As a group it’s estimatedto provide in the region of 35 billion Euros per annum
in research funds, resulting in around 150,000
published articles each year

Plan S is not a policy. It is a set of 10 principles, uponwhich cOAlition S funders have agreed to align theirpolicies.

Plan S is built on a strong principle that all scholarly
publications resulting from funding by cOAlition S
organisations, must be made immediately available,
without embargo, under a CC BY licence.

There are three equally valid routes to compliance:
Publication in a fully Open Access venue; Open
Access publication in a subscription journal with an
OA option (known as hybrid Open Access) under atransformative agreement; or publication in a
subscription journal and the Version of Record or
Author Accepted Manuscript made immediately
available in a repository.

Hybrid OA (OA option in subscription journal)• cOAlition S strong position on hybrid OA• See “Why hybrid journals do not lead to full and immediate Open Access”•

https://www.coalition-s.org/why-hybrid-journals-do-not-lead-to-full-and-immediate-open-access/• APCs (Article Processing Charges) for publication in hybrid
journals are not financially supported by cOAlition S
funders unless the journal is part of a transformative
arrangement

BUT…….
• cOAlition S confirms the end of its financial support for Open
Access publishing under transformative arrangements after2024•

https://www.coalition-s.org/coalition-s-confirms-the-end-of-its-financial-support-for-open-access-publishing-under-transformative-arrangements-after-2024/

The funders will not currently financially support
Article Processing Charges or APCs for OA publicationin hybrid journals, unless the journal is part of atransformative arrangement. Because of the
problems of a hybrid OA model, and recognizing therisk that transformative arrangements may not in fact
be transformative, cOAlition S funders have confirmed
they will not offer financial support for OA publishingunder transformative arrangements after 2024.

7

Now let’s take a look at copyright and licensing

Authors’ right to use their own work: How things
Licence to Publish (LTP) written by publisher - Imbalance
stand• The publisher does not need the authors’ rights to publish the paper – only needs a LTP• Authors’ terms of use of their own intellectual creation written by publisher• Publisher’s business model takes priority over scholarship• Business model unnecessarily conflated with author’s rights
Conflating ‘value added service’ with ‘author rights’ creates risk
• Some publishers conflate paid value added service with content ownership• Risk of service provider control shifting upstream as new dissemination models emerge
Unhelpful permissions restrict author’s dissemination. Eg:• Allowing access via personal web but not repository• Restrictions on use of Academic Research Networks (eg ResearchGate; Academia.edu)• Embargoes. Claim of risk to sustainability without embargo – or not [See Elsevier Share
Links: The Schrödinger’s cat of Open Access]
Repository services are not being fully exploited• Repositories not maximizing dissemination potential for researchers & universities• Too much time spent on OA policy compliance rather than scholarship
Publishing terms designed for 20th not 21st century research dissemination

Here’s a summary of the position when authors submit their manuscripts to
many publishers.
a.

Firstly, a publisher does not need the authors’ rights in order topublish the paper – they only need a Licence to Publish (LTP) from theauthor. The licence to publish that a typical author signs tends to be
written by the publisher, even though it is the author licensing the
publisher to publish their work. This imbalance means the
publisher’s business model takes precedence over scholarship, andis conflated with the author’s rights. Conflating the publisher’s valueadded service with content ownership means that there is a futurerisk this same model could be adopted further upstream the research
process to other output types such as preprints, micro-publications,and so on.

b.

It comes down to who controls the content, that is, the author’s
intellectual creation. If it is clear that the author retains control of
their rights, and that is non-negotiable, then discussions aboutpublication can proceed without argument.

9c.

There are lots of examples of publishers imposing unhelpful terms on
authors such as allowing immediate Open Access via a personal
website, but not in a repository. Saying it’s OK to distribute via one
freely available website, but not another totally ignores the way theinternet works, and just adds to researcher’s confusion.

d.

Another confusing restriction is that on the rules for dissemination via
Academic Research Networks such as ResearchGate andAcademia.edu.

e.

There is also the questionable claim that embargoes for the AcceptedManuscript are necessary – which is contradicted by some publishers
who at the same time promote unembargoed access to paywalled
articles via tools such as ShareLink and SharedIt. I direct you to mypiece on the cOAlition S blog: Elsevier Share Links: The Schrödinger’s
cat of Open Access as well as a piece I wrote on Springer Nature
ShareIt and one about Springer Nature sharing terms. I’ll make thelinks available later in the chat.
i. https://www.coalition-s.org/blog/we-encourage-you-to-shareyour-article-widely-but-not-too-much/ii.

https://www.coalition-s.org/blog/springer-naturedoublespeak/iii. https://www.coalition-s.org/blog/elsevier-share-links-theschrodingers-cat-of-open-access/f.

As a result of all this, repositories are not fully exploited to maximise
dissemination for researchers and universities. And because of the
convoluted permissions that result in complex terms, too much timeand money is spent on policy compliance rather than actual
dissemination. To sum up, the model used in most current situations
is designed for 20th, not 21st century research dissemination.

9

Part 2
Plan S Rights Retention Strategy
What it is and why it was adopted

Now let’s take a look at the Plan S Rights Retention
Strategy.

10Rights Retention Strategy (RRS): Objectives•

Main objective:
All research funded by cOAlition S organisations is OA withzero embargo + CC BY licence•

Empower researchers working with a cOAlition S funder toretain sufficient intellectual property rights to their Author
Accepted Manuscript (AAM)•

Global access:
Authors, who own the rights to their AAM, share it in a repository.

•

Simplicity:
Cut through the complexity of journal ‘permissions’ no embargoes.
The CC BY licence on the AAM allows authors to share the AAM in a
repository, and to freely reuse their own material as they see fit

The main objective of the strategy is that all research
funded by cOAlition S organisations is OA (Open
Access), with zero embargo, with a CC BY licence. The
strategy aims to empower researchers to retain
sufficient intellectual property rights to the Author
Accepted Manuscript so that they can share it
globally in a repository and elsewhere. It aims to cut
through the complexity of journal permissions &embargoes, allowing authors freedom to choose how
they share their work.

11

1

Rights Retention Strategy (RRS)
What authors need to do
1. To inform the publisher that they are using the RRS, cOAlition
S funded researchers should include the following templated
language in their submissions:

2“This research was funded, in whole or in part, by[Organisation Name, Grant #]. A CC BY licence is applied
to the AAM arising from this submission, in accordancewith the grant’s open access conditions.”
2. On publication: make AAM open access in a repository3

3. Contact their funder (or library) in case of disagreementwith or obfuscation by the publisher
cOAlition S informed > 150 publishers of the RRS prior to its adoption

It’s designed to be simple for authors, who simply
need to include template text in their submission, andthen make their Accepted Manuscript open access ina repository. If there are any disagreements with their
publisher, they can contact their funder (or theirlibrary)

12

Some challenges• Author rights retention (RR) challenged by some publishers – using
contract law rather than copyright law• Some publishers have adopted unhelpful workflows to try to counterauthor RR• Confuses researchers• Authors not informed by journal about options until acceptance• Authors may sign conflicting contract (Journal + Uni Funder Grant
agreement)• Authors may be invoiced for APCs they can’t pay• cOAlition S RRS only applies to funded authors within an institution
Despite this…

• lots of papers have been made OA using the Plan S RR wording• Authors fears around desk rejection have not been realised

https://pixabay.com/photos/puzzle-pieces-puzzle-game-592781/

Unfortunately, some publishers have challenged author
rights retention. They have done this via contract law rather
than copyright law. Some publishers have adopted unhelpful
workflows to try to counter author rights retention, which
confuses researchers. It can mean authors are not informedby the journal about their options until acceptance, may
result in conflicting contracts, or that authors are invoiced
for APCs they can’t pay. Additionally, rights retention only
applies to funded authors within an institution. However,despite this, lots of papers have been made OA using the RR
wording, and authors fears around desk rejection have notbeen realized.

13

Part 4
Institutional Rights Retention
Policies
The case of the UK and beyond

Fortunately, simpler and even more effective
solutions are being adopted in universities across the
UK and beyond.

14

Institutional Rights Retention Policies (IRRP)• cOAlition S Rights Retention Strategy• Limited to funded authors• Funders: No ‘skin’ in the Author-Publisher publishing
contract• Provided impetus for institutions to adopt their own policies• IRRPs are stronger than funders’ policies• Applies to all researchers – funded or not• Direct link with author via employment contract/signatoryof funding agreement• Prior licence may form part of employment contract – ifchallenged: claim of procurement of breach of contract orsimilarhttps://pixabay.com/illustrations/silhouettes-person-circle-1186990/

Although the cOAlition S Rights Retention Strategy has limits- it is limited to funded authors, and the funder has no legal
place in the author-publisher relationship – it has proved to
be an impetus for universities to adopt their own, stronger,
rights retention policies. University policies apply to all
researchers, funded or not. There is a direct link via theresearcher’s employment contract with the author. And mostimportantly, the prior licence that is agreed between
researcher & university may form part of an employment
contract. The prior licence means that if, challenged, theuniversity could claim procurement of breach of contract orsimilar.

15

UK Institutional Rights Retention Policies• Rapid progress• > 28 UK institutions adopted institutionalrights retention policies in just over 2 years•(at 3 June 2024)• Many more in the pipeline• Visualisation with links to policies• Prof Stephen J. Eglen, University ofCambridge• https://sje30.github.io/rrs/rrs.html

Since 2021 there has been rapid adoption of suchinstitutional rights retention policies in the UK. It now
stands at 28 adopted policies with many more in thepipeline. Please take a look at Prof Stephen Eglen’s
excellent visualisation.

16

Typical (UK) Institutional Rights Retention Policy(IRRP)
Prior
licensingmeans thework is‘licensed’ tothe university
even before
it’s written• Confirms members of staff own the copyright (not the institution)• Researcher automatically grants the institution a non-exclusive licence tomake their manuscripts publicly available under a CC BY licence as a conditionof employment• Researcher provides the institution with an Author Accepted Manuscript (AAM)
copy of the work (usually via the library)• AAM (Author Accepted Manuscript) made Open Access (usually by the library
via the repository)• Covers research articles & conference papers, but may include other outputs

A typical UK policy confirms that it is the member ofstaff that owns the copyright. The researcher
automatically grants the institution a non-exclusive
licence to make their manuscripts publicly available
under a CC BY licence as a condition of employment,
and provide the library with their accepted
manuscript to be made available via the repository.
Policies usually cover research articles andconference papers, but may include other item types.
The beauty of the prior licence is that, in effect, itmeans the work is licenced to the university before it’s
written.

17

Progress in Norway• Universities + research institutes• 14 policies adopted• Since 2022
• “Institutional rights policy meansthat what is to be published must
be posted in open institutionalarchives. The researchers are free
to own, use, control and archive
their own research.” ** Via Google translate

https://www.openscience.no/aktuelt/institusjonellrettighetspolitikk-rrs-irrs-ved-norskeforskningsinstitusjoner

Progress in Norway has also been rapid. 14 policies
have been adopted since 2022 and the Norwegians
have taken a particularly robust approach.

18

Global status of
IRRPs• Globally numbers of policies
is increasing• Growing Open AccessDirectory list of policies• Includes 60 in USA•

https://oad.simmons.edu/oadwiki/
University_rightsretention_OA_policies

Of course, institutional policies are not new. The first
was Harvard’s back in 2008 and since then, numbers
have been increasing including about 60 in the USA.
Take a look at the global list of policies

19Lots of benefits of Institutional Rights Retention Policies

https://pixabay.com/photos/biscuitcake-food-dessert-to-taste-4652694/

1. Simple to communicate, use, and understand2. Authors can disseminate and use their own work as they choose• Control of primary dissemination by author resides in academia
3. Researchers feel supported by their institution• As part of employment contract: university, not researcher,counters any pushback
4. Increased researchers’ engagement with OA
5. Counters complexities of convoluted & conflicting rights policies forresearchers & library staff – saving time & therefore money• Cuts through confused messaging from publishers
6. Researchers’ fears have not been realised re: editorial rejection;
non-cooperative co-authors; when signing publication agreements• Little pushback from publishers (dissatisfaction but not rejection)
7. Opportunities to save time and money• Strengthens institutional negotiating position with publishers• Reduces repository time spent managing embargoes
8. Applies to all, not just funded, researchers
9. Increases open access to researcher’s & institution’s publications• More OA via institutional repository & plugs gaps
10. Low numbers of opt-outs by researchers reported
11. Benefits researchers, research, institution, & society in general

AdoptedIN support of,and
WITH thesupport ofuniversity
academic staff

There are lots of benefits to adopting an institutional rights retention policy. I’ve
listed many of them here, and you can read them at your leisure later. They include
that they are simple to communicate & understand. It gives authors control of theirown dissemination of their research findings. Importantly, researchers feel
supported by their institution. Adopting a rights retention policy can save theinstitution money for example, by simplifying repository processes, thereby saving
time. It can also save money by strengthening the institution’s negotiating position
for publisher deals.
a. If the institution has a valid alternative for making papers Open Access,it means the publisher’s offer can be much more fairly negotiated. For
example, negotiations could address limitations on researchers such asthat of Elsevier, who stipulate that authors can make only “some” use of
their own work only “if” their library has a subscription.
b. Ultimately, because of the increased open access to the papers, it
benefits individual researchers, the institution, and broader research &society in general. It means that keeping your rights as an author stillallows a publisher to provide publication services, but keeps control of
the author’s dissemination within academia, and this is rapidly
becoming the norm.

20

My experience of Rights Retention (RR) policies• Major publishers• Some publishers don’t like RR policies but have no valid arguments against authors
retaining their rights• However, author RR is becoming the de facto norm at many universities• Some publishers create procedures to make it difficult for authors to retain theirrights or they ‘encourage’ paid APC (Article Processing Charge) option (eg ACS)
• Only one publisher has specifically said they will desk reject m/s because of RR• ASH: American Society of Hematology• Lots of examples of rights retention being used and m/s made OA – even whennot ‘allowed’ by publisher• No repercussions I’m aware of• Negative optics of publisher attempting to prosecute an academic or a university forretaining their own rights• Lots of researchers’ groups strongly support Plan S RRS• GYA; YAE; EUA; Science Europe; EuroDoc; Marie Curie Alumni Assoc; CESAER• Researchers and institutions are taking positive action to support researchers• Universities increasingly reassuring researchers ‘we’ve got your back’• Universities are collaborating to adopt policies• Sharing resources, experience and expertise (eg N8, Midlands Innovation, SCURL, GW4)

Some publishers don’t like RR policies but have no valid arguments against
authors retaining their rights. However, author RR is becoming the norm at many
universities. Unfortunately, some publishers create procedures to make it
difficult for authors to retain their rights or they ‘encourage’ paid APC option. To
my knowledge, only one publisher has specifically said they will desk reject m/s
because of RR. There are lots of examples of rights retention being used and m/smade OA – even when not ‘allowed’ by publishers with no repercussions that I’maware of. Lots of researchers’ groups strongly support Plan S RRS including the
Global Young Academy, EuroDoc and CESAER. Researchers & institutions aretaking positive action to support researchers, and universities are increasingly
reassuring researchers ‘we’ve got your back.’ Universities are collaborating to
adopt policies by sharing resources, experience & expertise. Examples in the UK
include the N8 partnership, and SCURL in Scotland.

21

Some Publishers’ arguments against Rights Retention
Claims*• Importance of the ‘Version of Record’• Gold OA is what authors want
• Green OA
•
•
•
•
•
•

Image:https://commons.wikime
dia.org/wiki/File:White_flag_wavi
ng.svg underhttps://creativecommons.org/lic
enses/by-sa/3.0/deed.en* Many of theseclaims can be
refuted“undermines progress”
Potential problems with Green OA
Emphasis on green OA is not constructive
Risk of establishing green OA as the default
Green OA removes incentives for institutions to transition funding towards gold OA
Green OA disincentivizes funders to establish structured funds to support OA• Authors rights retention erodes the advantages of full OA• “The RRS…gives authors the opportunity to select subscription journals and thesubscription model at the expense of full OA titles” i.e. prefer not to enable author choice• RRS undermines publishers’ progress & commitment to OA• Publishers produce high quality journals• Publishers add value• The Rights Retention Strategy ignores long-standing academic freedoms• Sustainability: “[RRS] provides an immediate free substitute that eliminates the ability tocharge for the services that publishers provide.”
https://www.oaspa.org/news/open-post-the-rise-of-immediate-green-oa-undermines-progress/ Publishers’ response to launch of Plan S Rights Retention Strategy
posted on OASPA site Dec 2020; https://www.springernature.com/gp/open-research/journals-books/journals/going-for-gold-reach-and-impact;
https://group.springernature.com/gp/group/media/press-releases/springer-nature-signs-joint-letter-with-50--other-publishers-/18828798

Some publishers have made arguments supposedly against author rights
retention. Their arguments include the importance of the version of record, andthat Gold Open Access is what authors want.
a. They list a number of points criticising green open access.
b. Many of their claims can be refuted. They claim that authors retaining
the rights to their own intellectual creation undermines publishers’commitment to Open Access. They even claim that availability of theaccepted manuscript stops them from charging for their services.
c. They note that publishers produce high quality journals and they add
value, which of course they do.
d. They also surprisingly claim that author rights retention somehow
ignores long-standing academic freedoms.

22Even though some of these statements are accurate….
Some publishers arguments against RR are notactually about RR: in reality, the points they makeare focused on their dislike of Green OA

Not oneof these publishers’
arguments provides
a reasonwhy authors
should give up their rights

Even though some, but by no means all, of thesestatements are accurate, the claims against author
rights retention are focused on some publisher’s clear
dislike of green open access, BUT not one of thearguments actually provides a reason why authors
should give up their rights.

23

Some publishers’
arguments against
Rights Retention:
Claims *• Importance of the ‘Version of Record’ – Not a reason to give up rights• Gold OA is what authors want – Maybe. Not a reason to give up rights• Green OA “undermines progress” – Inaccurate & Not a reason to give up rights* Many of theseclaims can be
refuted• Potential problems with Green OA – Not a reason to give up rights• Emphasis on green OA is not constructive – Inaccurate & Not a reason to give up rights• Risk of establishing green OA as the default – Deflection & Not a reason to give up rights• Authors’ RR erodes the advantages of full OA – Inaccurate & Not a reason to give up rights• Prefer not to enable author choice of green OA – Deflection & Not a reason to give up rights• Green OA removes incentives for institutions to transition funding towards gold OA – Deflection &Not a reason to give up rights• Green OA disincentivizes funders to establish structured funds to support OA – Inaccurate & Not

a reason to give up rights• RRS undermines publishers’ progress & commitment to OA – Deflection & Not a reason to giveup rights• Publishers produce high quality journals – True. But not a reason to give up rights• Publishers add value – True. But not a reason to give up rights• RRS ignores long-standing academic freedoms – Inaccurate & Not a reason to give up rights• Sustainability: RRS ‘provides an immediate free substitute that eliminates the ability to charge forthe services that publishers provide.’ – Inaccurate & Not a reason to give up rights
Image:https://commons.wikimedia.org/wik
i/File:White_flag_waving.svg underhttps://creativecommons.org/licenses/bysa/3.0/deed.en

https://www.oaspa.org/news/open-post-the-rise-of-immediate-green-oa-undermines-progress/ Publishers’ response to launch of Plan S Rights Retention Strategy
posted on OASPA site Dec 2020; https://www.springernature.com/gp/open-research/journals-books/journals/going-for-gold-reach-and-impact;
https://group.springernature.com/gp/group/media/press-releases/springer-nature-signs-joint-letter-with-50--other-publishers-/18828798

For example, neither the fact that publishers produce highquality journals, or that publishers add value are reasons for
authors to give away their rights. Arguing that green OA removes
incentives for institutions to transition funding towards gold OA isa deflection – institutions are not duty bound to spend theirbudgets on gold OA, especially when there are so many othernew options emerging, such as Subscribe to Open, diamond OA,
new platforms such as Octopus, the Peer Community In Notify
initiative, and so on. Arguing that green OA disincentivizes
funders to establish structured funds to support OA is spurious –funders are pouring millions into open access and open science,and continue to do so. Again, they do not have to be tied to asingle paid gold OA model in an evolving 21st century digitallandscape. None of these publishers’ arguments provide any
reason for authors to give away their rights.

24Part 5The bigger picture
Rights retention in the digital age

Looking forward

25

Rights retention in the digital age: Supports the following:
1.

Actively & visibly support your researchers• Enable Author/Researcher choice• Focus on research dissemination not compliance• Primary focus on scholarship & shared knowledge

2.

Embed core copyright & publishing policy to support current & future 21st
century Open Scholarship, and emerging models of research
dissemination• Throughout research process, not just at the end• New (& as yet unknown) output types (protocols, code, data, preprints,•

https://pixabay.com/photos/t
raffic-lights-green-lightstreet-6324351/

micropublications, etc)
New & emerging models of ‘publishing’ (overlay peer review, Notify initiative
using repositories, etc)3.

Within research institutions: Author rights underpin ability to manage
research culture, recognition & reward, budgets

4.

RR encourages globally equitable models of disseminating researchfindings

5.

Return control of scholarship to academia

In addition to the reasons already mentioned
Join in. don’t just view this as about RR, or compliance – fit with uni policies
Actively supporting employees – putting them first before external suppliers-------------------------------------Author rights retention actively & visibly supports researchers as open research
evolves, ensuring the focus is on scholarship and shared knowledge. Having
rights retention as a core part of a copyright & publishing policy supports
researchers to participate and flourish in the rapidly evolving 21st century open
scholarship environment. They can easily participate in new and emerging
models of global research dissemination.
a.

For institutions, author rights retention is a lynchpin for establishing amodern global research culture, for enabling robust recognition &rewards, and for managing squeezed budgets. Rights retention
encourages more equitable models of disseminating researchfindings, and ultimately, it helps return control of scholarship toacademia.

26

Part 6
Japanese OA plan
How author rights retention will
support the planNow let’s consider the new Japanese plan for Open
Access27

Context: G7 Open Science working Group (OSWG)
recommendations• Address barriers that hinder scientific cooperation and slow the ability to respond to crises
Research assessment & incentives• i) Change the research assessment system to encourage open science, through valuing morediversified research outputs, activities, practices and career paths• iv) raise awareness and provide leadership to promote open science practices• vi) provide infrastructures and support necessary to practice open science• vii) provide education and training that enable researchers to practice open science
Interoperability & sustainability• i) the pandemic illustrated the importance of world-wide sharing of data and other research
outputs to accelerate research and decision-making,• ii) successful responses to common challenges and future global crises will require similaraccessing, sharing, and comparing data;• iii) open science infrastructures therefore need to be embedded in standard workflows inadvance in order to be effectively leveraged during crisis situations.

G7 Hiroshima Summit, 2023. Communiqué
https://www8.cao.go.jp/cstp/kokusaiteki/g7_2023/annex1_os.pdf

I first want to add some context. Here are relevant
recommendations from the G7 Open Science working
group. The text mentions valuing more diversified
research outputs, promoting open science practices,and provision of infrastructure & support for open
science. It also stresses the need to be prepared forknowledge sharing to enable rapid responses toglobal crises.

28

How author Rights Retention supports
implementation of G7 guidelines• Enables many more papers to be open: preparation forresponse to future crises• Can apply to any type of research output – makes it easierfor researcher• Promote RR as one element of soft research
infrastructure• Simple message to communicate to researchers

Author rights retention directly supports theserecommendations by enabling many more papers to
be open, by applying to any type of research output,
by being adopted as part of the research
infrastructure, and by being a simple message tocommunicate to researchers.

29

“Access toscientificknowledge
should be as
open aspossible”
UNESCO
Recommendations on
Open Science Para 8

Context: UNESCO Recommendation on Open Science• By promoting science that is more accessible, inclusive and transparent, open science furthers
the right of everyone to share in scientific advancement and its benefits as stated in Article 27.1 of
the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.
• Guiding Principle: 13. The core values of open science stem from the rightsbased,…legal,…implications of opening science to society and broadening the principles of
openness to the whole cycle of scientific research.

UNESCO Recommendation on Open Science asks Member States to:• Promote a shared understanding of open science & set out diverse paths to achieving it• Develop an enabling policy environment for open science• Invest in infrastructure and activities that contribute to open science• Invest in training, education, digital literacy & capacity-building to support open science• Foster a culture of open science and align incentives to support it• Promote innovative approaches for open science at all stages of the scientificprocess
Adopted Nov 2021

https://en.unesco.org/science-sustainable-future/open-science/recommendation

Here is the context of the UNESCO recommendation
on open science, that has similar points aroundunderstanding, infrastructure, culture of open science,and innovation across the entire scientific process. It
promotes equity via links to the Universal Declarationon Human Rights and by its guiding principles:
Sharing by right, not by waivers and concessions.

30

“Access toscientificknowledge
should be as
open aspossible”
UNESCO
Recommendations on
Open Science Para 8

Context:
UNESCO Recommendation on Open Science
Section II: Definition of Open Science“Any transfer or licensing of copyrights tothird parties should not restrict the public’s
right to immediate open access to ascientific publication.”[Para 7a, Page 9]

Adopted Nov 2021

https://en.unesco.org/science-sustainable-future/open-science/recommendation

UNESCO importantly states that “Any transfer or
licensing of copyrights to third parties should not
restrict the public’s right to immediate open access toa scientific publication.”31

“Access toscientificknowledge
should be as
open aspossible”
UNESCO
Recommendations on
Open Science Para 8

How Author Rights Retention directly supports
UNESCO Recommendations on Open Science• Enables diverse paths to achieving Open Science• Forms key element of an enabling policy for open science• Part of an investment in soft infrastructure and activities that contribute to open
science – especially when coupled with repository provision• Communications and training around RR increases digital literacy to support open
science• Helps foster a culture of open science• Enables an innovative approach for open science and can be applied to all stagesof the scientific process
Plus:• Maximises numbers of papers made open access• Enables findings to be more accessible, inclusive and transparent in support of
Universal Declaration on Human Rights• Allows the broadening of the principles of openness to the whole cycle of scientificresearch• Ensures that restrictive transfer or licensing of copyrights to third parties is notable to restrict the public’s right to immediate open access to a scientificpublication

Again, author rights retention directly supports the
UNESCO recommendations on open science by being
an enabling tool that underpins innovation andequitable knowledge sharing.

32

Key elements in the Japanese OA publications plan
• Applies from April 2025 for competitively funded research• Focus on G7 open science priorities, shared values, co-operation &collaboration• Focus on academic papers to be as open as possible, and as secure as necessary & enhance
the ability of researchers to disseminate their research outputs.

• Give back research findings to the public• Market dominance of publishers negatively affects dissemination of papers• Distribution [of academic papers] is under the market dominance of the global academic
publishers. The government will support enhancing the ability to negotiate for universities
and research institutes with academic publishers, based on the national policy.

• Adopt 21st century research dissemination models to maintain national
competitiveness• Promote efforts to ensure access to a variety of knowledge, including new forms such as
preprints.

• Focus on ‘Green’ OA via institutional repositories• Cost consideration• ￥10 billion allocated for institutional repositories to make science free to read
[Infrastructure]https://pixabay.com/vectors/fl
ag-japan-japanese-nation32177/

Integrated Innovation Strategy 2023 (Tentative translation). 9th June 2023. Cabinet Decision https://www8.cao.go.jp/cstp/tougosenryaku/togo2023_honbun_eiyaku.pdf
Dalmeet Singh Chawla, Japan’s push to make all research OA is taking shape. Nature. 3rd June 2024. https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-024-01493-8

Turning to the Japanese OA plan [which I have only
seen in translation], there appear to be 6 key
elements around shared values, collaboration, publicaccess, budgetary consideration, national
competitiveness, and repositories as a key vehicle fordissemination.

33

How Author Rights Retention will enable the newJapanese plan to succeed
Japanese OA Plan

Rights Retention Enabling

1.

Focus on G7 open science
priorities, shared values, cooperation & collaboration

1.

2.

Give back research findings
to the publicMarket dominance of
publishers negatively affects
dissemination of papers

2.

Adopt 21st century research
dissemination models tomaintain national
competitiveness
Focus on ‘Green’ OA via
institutional repositories

4.

3.

4.

5.

3.

5.

Enhances the ability of researchers todisseminate their research outputs andmake as many of them as possible themas open as possible
Maximises the ability to give backscholarly outputs to the public
Addresses the difficulties of 3rd party
complex terms and conditions &strengthens university negotiating
position
On point for supporting new models of
research dissemination in the digital age
to aid competitiveness and improveresearch collaboration
Maximises dissemination and curation
opportunities offered by Institutional
Repositories

https://pixabay.com/vectors/fl
ag-japan-japanese-nation32177/

Author rights retention will enable the new plan to succeed,
because it enhances the ability of researchers todisseminate their research outputs and make as many ofthem as possible them as open as possible. It maximises theability to give back scholarly outputs to the public; itaddresses the difficulties of 3rd party complex terms &conditions, and strengthens university negotiating positions;
it supports new models of research dissemination in thedigital age to aid competitiveness, and improve researchcollaboration; and finally it maximises dissemination &curation opportunities offered by Institutional Repositories.

34

Return on investment on ￥10 billion• Build on previous investment in repositories• Author Rights Retention maximises the effectiveness ofGreen OA strategy• It does this by:• Blanket option to enable all papers to be immediately OA –everyone can easily fulfil the strategy• Simplifies instructions for authors (library support)• Unified message to all (reduces policy stack problem)• Supporting 21st century research dissemination models via
repositories• Economic considerations• OA in published journals but not at any cost
• Increases negotiating power• Simplifies repository workflows (saves time and therefore money)

Given the considerable investment in repositories,
adopting author rights retention helps build on theprevious investment in repositories and maximises
the effectiveness of the green OA strategy. It does thisin a number of ways, including supporting 21st century
innovative research dissemination models via
repositories, and by helping address budgetary
constraints.

35

Authors right to use their own work:.

How to get there• Need to take action• Ideally change the law• Slow but not impossible• Eg Secondary publishing right• Adopted Slovenia, Bulgaria, etc•[https://www.knowledgerights21.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/10/KR21-Secondary-Publishing-Rights-Position-paper-v1.1.pdf]• Funders adopt supportive policies• Eg Plan S Rights Retention Strategy• Raise researcher’s awareness• Work in collaboration & in consultation with researchers explaining the reasoning• Universities & research institutions adopt policies that support theirresearchers••••

See global list of RR policies [https://oad.simmons.edu/oadwiki/University_rights-retention_OA_policies]
Eg Harvard etc
Norway [https://www.openscience.no/aktuelt/institusjonell-rettighetspolitikk-rrs-irrs-ved-norske-forskningsinstitusjoner]
UK [https://sje30.github.io/rrs/rrs.html]• Once you’ve got an OA option that doesn’t need a publisher, THEN you canstart negotiating a publisher’s deal on a more level playing field
https://pixabay.com/illustrations/progressgrowth-success-business-3936332/

Adopting author rights retention requires action. Ideallynational law would be changed. This can be very slow, but
not impossible – I refer you to countries such as Slovenia
and Bulgaria that are adopting secondary publishing rights.
Research funders can adopt supportive policies likecOAlition S and its Rights Retention Strategy. Work can beundertaken to raise individual researchers’ awareness of
their rights. The pragmatic solution that is being adopted bymany universities is to adopt author rights retention policies
that support all their researchers. For institutions adopting
rights retention policies, once they have an OA option that
doesn’t need a publisher, THEN the institution can startnegotiating publication deals on a more level playing field.

36

Good reasons to promote & adopt Author Rights Retention
1.

Excessive gift: a publisher does not need authors’ rights to publish theirmanuscript• Limits author re-use including translation rights• Shift the gift: Retain your rights to share with whom you should be sharing - the global
research community

2.

3.
4.
5.
6.
https://pixabay.com/photos/t
raffic-lights-green-lightstreet-6324351/

Gift to the world• Opens opportunities for wider global sharing of research findings• Benefits research, researchers and wider society

Economic:• Having a Rights Retention Policy strengthens your negotiating position for OA deals• Simplifies processing & workflows for repositories (saves time and money)

Researchers fears not realized:• Many researchers are already retaining their rights – and continue to publish with theirchosen journal/publisher

RR Underpins dissemination in the digital age:

• By not giving away their rights, researchers are better enabled to take opportunities forparticipating in 21st century digital research dissemination models

Common practice:• Author rights retention is rapidly becoming the de facto norm – don’t get left behind

My final slide lists good reasons to promote & adopt author rights retention either
locally or nationally. Firstly, the current practice of authors giving away theirrights can be described as an Excessive gift. A publisher does not need authors’
rights to publish their manuscript. Shift the gift so that researchers maximise
their sharing with the global research community as a gift to the world. This will
open opportunities for wider global sharing & collaboration, and will benefit
research, researchers, and wider society.
•••

Having a Rights Retention Policy strengthens a university’s negotiating
position for OA arrangements, to enable fairer & more sustainable deals.
Many publishers insist that their paid gold OA option should be the ultimate
aim. Remember that this paid Gold OA is not controllable: there has beenan almost 10% price increase in a single year. This is unsustainable.
Retaining authors rights is essential to regain control of budgets.
It is important that the transition to full open scholarship happens in as
short a time frame as possible. A recent report by Jisc states that “Based on
the journal flipping rates observed between 2018 – 2022 it would take atleast 70 years for the big five publishers to flip their Transformative
Arrangement titles to OA.” This is another reason to exploit the affordable

37

•
•
•
•

dissemination opportunities offered by repositories.
o https://zenodo.org/records/10787392
Note that researchers fears have not been realized and many researchers
are already retaining their rights, whilst continuing to publish with theirchosen journal.
RR Underpins dissemination in the digital age because, by not giving away
their rights, researchers better enable opportunities for participating in 21st
century digital research dissemination models.
Transferring control of author’s use of content and control of budgets backto academia, is the only way to ensure affordable, global scholarship, in thedigital age
And finally, Author rights retention is rapidly becoming the de facto norm –don’t get left behind37

Publish with Power – Protect your Rights

Thank youwww.coalition-s.org
info@coalition-s.org@cOAlitions_OA@cOAlitionS_OA@fediscience.org

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0
International License http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/

Thank you38