COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT

IMPACT ASSESSMENT

Accompanying the document

COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION

ON ACCESS TO AND PRESERVATION OF SCIENTIFIC INFORMATION IN THE DIGITAL AGE

TABLE OF CONTENTS

1........... Background, procedural issues and consultation of interested parties................................ 7

1.1........ Introduction.................................................................................................................... 7

1.2........ Background.................................................................................................................... 7

1.3........ External expertise and studies.......................................................................................... 9

1.4........ Public consultations directly linked to the current policy process..................................... 10

1.5........ Opinion of the Impact Assessment Board...................................................................... 12

2........... Problem definition......................................................................................................... 13

2.1........ Context and economic impact....................................................................................... 13

2.2........ Problems to be addressed............................................................................................. 15

2.2.1..... Access to research publications..................................................................................... 15

2.2.1.1.. Journal subscription prices increase and library budgets are under pressure.................... 16

2.2.1.2.. The development of the open access movement............................................................. 18

2.2.2..... Accessibility of research data........................................................................................ 22

2.2.3..... Preservation of scientific content.................................................................................... 25

2.2.3.1.. Preservation of scientific journals................................................................................... 25

2.2.3.2.. Preservation of scientific data........................................................................................ 26

2.3........ Stakeholder analysis: who is affected and how?............................................................. 26

2.3.1..... Researchers.................................................................................................................. 26

2.3.2..... Businesses, including SMEs.......................................................................................... 27

2.3.3..... Scientific publishers....................................................................................................... 27

2.3.4..... Governments (national/ sub-state level).......................................................................... 27

2.3.5..... Academic institutions (including their libraries)................................................................ 27

2.3.6..... Citizens........................................................................................................................ 28

2.4........ The EU dimension........................................................................................................ 28

2.4.1..... Treaty Base.................................................................................................................. 28

2.4.2..... Subsidiarity test............................................................................................................ 28

2.5........ Baseline scenario.......................................................................................................... 29

2.5.1..... Fragmentation of national OA policies........................................................................... 29

2.5.2..... Divergence regarding developing the e-infrastructure for open access............................. 29

2.5.3..... Fragmentation regarding research data.......................................................................... 30

2.5.4..... Lack of preservation policies in EU............................................................................... 30

2.6........ Conclusion on the baseline scenario............................................................................... 31

3........... Objectives.................................................................................................................... 32

3.1........ General policy objectives and more specific/operational objectives................................. 32

3.2........ Related policies............................................................................................................ 35

3.2.1..... EU growth strategy Europe 2020 and its flagship initiatives............................................ 35

3.2.2..... EU policy in the area of open data................................................................................. 35

3.2.3..... Horizon 2020 and the European Research Area (ERA) framework................................ 35

3.2.4..... The Commission's policy regarding open access in the programmes for research and innovation 36

3.2.5..... The Commission's journal publication scheme................................................................ 36

3.3........ The international framework.......................................................................................... 37

4........... Policy options............................................................................................................... 39

4.1........ Discontinuing existing EU action.................................................................................... 39

4.2........ No policy change (Baseline scenario)............................................................................ 39

4.3........ Providing a policy framework to MS in the form of soft law........................................... 41

4.4........ Approximation of MS legislation................................................................................... 42

5........... Assessment of the options............................................................................................. 43

5.1........ Discontinuing existing EU action.................................................................................... 43

5.1.1..... Impacts related to access, re-use and preservation of scientific information..................... 43

5.1.2..... Economic impact.......................................................................................................... 43

5.1.3..... Impact on stakeholders................................................................................................. 44

5.1.3.1.. Impact on researchers................................................................................................... 44

5.1.3.2.. Impact on academic libraries......................................................................................... 44

5.1.3.3.. Impact on scientific publishers....................................................................................... 44

5.1.4..... Financial impact............................................................................................................ 44

5.1.5..... Social & environmental impacts..................................................................................... 44

5.2........ No policy change (baseline scenario)............................................................................. 44

5.2.1..... Impacts related to access, re-use and preservation of scientific information..................... 45

5.2.2..... Economic impact.......................................................................................................... 45

5.2.3..... Impact on stakeholders:................................................................................................ 45

5.2.3.1.. Impact on researchers................................................................................................... 45

5.2.3.2.. Impact on academic libraries......................................................................................... 45

5.2.3.3.. Impact on scientific publishers....................................................................................... 46

5.2.4..... Financial impact............................................................................................................ 46

5.2.5..... Social & environmental impacts..................................................................................... 46

5.3........ Implementation of a policy framework by a Recommendation to Member States............ 46

5.3.1..... Implementation in relation to scientific publications......................................................... 46

5.3.1.1.. General impact: Better access to scientific publications and wider economic benefits....... 46

5.3.1.2.. Specific impacts on stakeholders................................................................................... 47

5.3.2..... Implementation in relation to open access to research data............................................. 56

5.3.3..... Implementation in relation to preservation...................................................................... 57

5.3.4..... Effects of scale............................................................................................................. 58

5.3.5..... Conclusion................................................................................................................... 58

5.4........ Approximation of MS legislation................................................................................... 58

5.5........ Comparison of the policy options.................................................................................. 59

5.6........ Evaluation of the administrative burden.......................................................................... 63

5.7........ Conclusion................................................................................................................... 63

6........... Monitoring and evaluation............................................................................................. 64

6.1........ Continuous monitoring.................................................................................................. 64

6.2........ Evaluation..................................................................................................................... 64

Annex 1: Main aspects of the scientific information system............................................................ 65

Annex 2: Executive summary of the 2011 Questionnaire to European Research Area Council....... 81

Annex 3: Survey on Open Access in FP7 – summary of responses............................................... 85

Annex 4: Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ) about Open Access.............................................. 88

Annex 5 – Key indicators on OA publishing in MS...................................................................... 90

Annex 6 - Glossary..................................................................................................................... 92

1. Background, procedural issues and consultation of interested parties

1.1. Introduction

This Impact Assessment accompanies the Recommendation from the Commission to the Member States on access to and preservation of scientific information.

One of the ways in which Europe aims to tackle its structurally low growth rate is by creating optimal conditions for innovation. According to the March 2010 Communication from the Commission Europe 2020,[1] knowledge and innovation are essential to future growth. Innovation can be enhanced via knowledge sharing, which in turn can be supported by Information and Communication Technologies (ICT).

Indeed, as a result of the institutional and public debate subsequent to the 2007 Commission Communication on scientific information in the digital age,[2] which was followed by Council Conclusions on Scientific Information,[3] a number of key areas have been identified where effective action by and between Member States could deliver significant gains for Europe's research and innovation system. This would help to create the "fifth freedom" in Europe - the free circulation of knowledge across the European Union (EU). By improving and facilitating efficient access to world-class scientific knowledge for large communities of researchers, SMEs and citizens, it would also foster Europe's wider competitiveness and enable a better understanding of society and the environment.

The specific challenges in the area of scientific information and the accompanying actions are spelled out in a Communication and in a Recommendation to the Member States. The Communication will take stock of recent developments and will set out the way in which the Commission will promote and implement open access within its research programmes. The Recommendation, the object of this impact assessment, will suggest a concrete set of actions to be implemented by Member States.

The Commission is also planning to table a Communication on a Unified European Research Area to Foster Efficiency, Excellence and Growth. The Communication will inter alia address open access with a cross reference to the Recommendation on access to and preservation of scientific information (the Impact Assessment of the Communication was initially submitted on 29 February 2012).

1.2. Background

In order for Europe to become an increasingly competitive knowledge-based economy, it is vital to improve not only the production of knowledge, but also access to and dissemination of the results of scientific research, in particular those resulting from publicly funded and co-funded research.

In 2010, the Commission adopted the Europe 2020 Flagship Initiatives Innovation Union,[4] and the Digital Agenda for Europe.[5] Both Communications make reference to open access (OA) as a means to work towards achieving the Europe 2020 objectives. They underline the importance of promoting better access to the results of publicly funded research, and introduce open access as the general principle for projects funded by EU research framework programmes.

Widening the availability and accessibility of scientific information is an essential part of the Commission's open data policy, which was underlined as a priority in the recent Communication[6] on Open Data adopted by the Commission on 12th December 2011. The document reflected the basic principle that scientific results resulting from EU publicly funded and co-funded research should be used as widely as possible.

A further strategic policy issue is the development and implementation of a European Research Area (ERA). The ERA is composed of all research and development activities, programmes and policies in Europe which involve a transnational perspective.[7] Together, they will enable researchers, research institutions and businesses to increasingly circulate, compete and co-operate across borders. The aim is to give them access to a Europe-wide open space for knowledge and technologies in which transnational synergies and complementarities are fully exploited. In this context, questions of access to and preservation of digital scientific information remain highly relevant.

The 2007 Council Conclusions on Scientific Information[8] also invited the Commission to experiment with open access to scientific results emanating from projects funded by EU research framework programmes. In August 2008, the Commission launched the Open Access Pilot in the Seventh Framework programme for Research and Development.[9] The Commission has collected feedback on experiences with the pilot through a survey sent to the co-ordinators of 811 projects. The 194 answers received provide important input for the future of the OA policy and practices in Horizon 2020. A summary of responses to this survey is available in Annex 3.

On 30 November 2011 the Commission adopted its proposal for the Horizon 2020 programme.[10] The programme will, from 2014 onwards, combine European research and innovation funding in one single framework. In the context of Horizon 2020, open access, which refers to the policy and practice of granting immediate and free internet access to scientific results (including peer-reviewed journal articles), will become a basic principle for the dissemination of EU publicly funded research[11]. The specific rules which will apply to the dissemination of the results of projects funded under Horizon 2020 will be spelled out in the implementing provisions of this programme.

The initiative to improve the access to and preservation of scientific information is co-lead by DG INFSO & DG RTD.[12]

An Impact Assessment steering group was set up to accompany the preparation of the IA report. The following Directorate-Generals (DGs) and services were invited: SG, SJ, COMP, EAC, ENTR, ENV, MARKT, MARE, JRC, ERCEA, CLIMA, MOVE, ENER, OP. The first meeting of the steering group took place on 7 April 2011, and a subsequent meeting was held on 14 October 2011.

A first version of this impact assessment was submitted to the Impact Assessment board on 9 November 2011. The current text takes up the suggestions made by the Board.

1.3. External expertise and studies

The Commission has monitored and taken into consideration the large number of reports and studies undertaken in this field.[13]&[14]&[15] In addition it has financed several projects and studies that assess different aspects of the access to and the preservation of scientific information, inter alia:

· The project Study of Open Access Publishing[16] (SOAP) looked into business models that have emerged over the last years, identifying stakeholders, risks, opportunities and essential requirements for a smooth transition to OA publishing[17] (also called Gold OA);

· The on-going project Publishing and the Ecology of European Research[18] (PEER) investigates the effects of large-scale, systematic depositing of authors' final peer-reviewed manuscripts (also called Green OA) on reader access, author visibility, and journal viability, as well as on the broader ecology of European research;

· Further information comes from the project Open Access Infrastructure for Research in Europe[19] (OpenAIRE), set up in 2009, which is building an e-infrastructure of interoperable repositories accessible via a single portal. It also has set up a network of helpdesks in the Member States, as well as a system to monitor and systematically gather information on the deposit of OA peer reviewed papers.[20]

· The report ‘Riding the Wave: How Europe can gain from the rising tide of scientific data’[21] which resulted from the work of the High Level Group on Scientific Data Infrastructures, specifically looked into the multiple challenges of access to and preservation of the large amounts of research data produced by modern science.

· Two participatory strategic policy workshops, one with national experts and one with representatives of the many relevant EC-projects on access and preservation issues, took place in late 2010 and early 2011.[22]

Further input has been gathered through networking, exchange of information, participation to conferences or meetings and informal discussions with stakeholders over recent years.

1.4. Public consultations directly linked to the current policy process

In accordance with established Commission standards, the Commission organised a public hearing on the access to and preservation of scientific information, which was followed by a wide-ranging on-line public consultation. A roadmap on the initiative was prepared and made publicly available.[23]

The public hearing was held on 30 May 2011 in Luxembourg and brought together circa 40 representatives from the scientific publishing community, research funding organisations, universities, research libraries, academia and Member States.[24] The hearing allowed interested parties to present and discuss their views on research evaluation systems, preservation of scientific outputs and access to scientific information (including OA).

The on-line public consultation on scientific information in the digital age was open from 15 July 2011 until 9 September 2011. All interested parties, including national and regional governments, research funding organisations, universities and research centres, libraries, publishers (both for profit and not for profit), researchers, as well as the public-at-large, were invited to contribute. The consultation yielded 1140 replies from 42 countries and the Commission also received 19 position papers.[25]

Figure 1: Respondents to the on-line public consultation by group of stakeholder; absolute number of respondents per group of stakeholder.

Box: on-line public consultation on scientific information in the digital age – key results

Respondents identified a strong need for better access to scientific publications and scientific data in Europe. 90% of respondents supported the idea that publications resulting from publicly funded research should, as a matter of principle, be in open access (OA) mode and that data from publicly funded research should be available for reuse, free of charge, on the Internet.

Furthermore, 83% called for policy formulation at EU level.

These findings are also reflected in the open access chapter of the on-line public consultation on the ERA Framework entitled "Areas of untapped potential for the development of the European Research Area (ERA)," which was open from 13.September 2011 to 30 November 2011.[26] 590 responses were received from a variety of stakeholders.

Box: ERA on-line public consultation – main results concerning open access

· A very high number of participants responded to the questions on open access to publications and data; among these respondents, 84% rate this area of intervention as important.

· A high number of respondents agreed that access to scientific publications (75%) and scientific data (81%) in the ERA needs to be improved.

· 88% agreed that open access to scientific publications and open data can enhance knowledge circulation in the ERA.

· The most important barriers to open access and open data include: insufficient awareness of the research community; insufficient member states policies on open access to data; insufficient coordination on member states policies and an insufficient pan European e-infrastructure for depositing; as well as insufficient interoperability.

· Respondents across the different categories acknowledged the key role of the European Commission in coordinating Member State initiatives, monitoring researchers' compliance and promoting open access policies to publications and data.

The results of these public consultations are used throughout this document in relation to the specific issues at stake.

1.5. Opinion of the Impact Assessment Board

Following the Opinions of the Impact Assessment Board on previous versions of this report, this report has undergone considerable changes.

· The problem analysis has been strengthened, by focussing on fewer problem drivers, clearly structuring them according to the three problem areas – access to research publications, access to research data and preservation of both publications and data.

· The framework of objectives, both specific and operational objectives has been entirely rewritten. A chart has been added. The link between the problem analysis and the policy intervention has been highlighted more clearly. Trade-offs are described in the assessment of the impacts, again including charts. The key operational objectives now include some specific and clearly timed targets.

· The policy options have been partly rewritten – in its entirety for the soft law and the approximation of legislation options. The focus is now on a policy framework and its content rather than on instruments of delivery. The comparison between the soft law option and the option of approximation of laws is presented in a new, clearer way. The baseline scenario has been strengthened by adding further aspects of the likely development without further EU policy intervention.

· The link with the ERA Communication (no longer a Framework Directive) and with Horizon 2020, including the way in which the Commission will deal with the research results stemming from its own projects has been clarified. These initiatives have been subject to a separate impact assessment. Also the link to the Commission's Open Data strategy is now clearly described.

· The analysis of the impacts has been entirely rewritten, in particular to address in great detail the concerns brought forward by for-profit scientific publishers. This category includes learned societies. The IA now also pays more attention between the economic and in particular the contractual relations between publishers and the researchers.

· The aspects of costs and benefits for MS have been presented in an entirely new way, including the robustness of the research that the analysis builds on. The economic impacts on research intensive countries are now also spelled out not only in terms of the expected overall savings, but also in terms of the costs in relation to R&D spending.

· Several other elements of substance have been significantly reinforced at the request of the IAB:

1. The issue of the relationship between OA and copyright transfers and alternative models for licensing are now discussed in the text;

2. The analysis on VAT related issues has been expanded, although the substance of VAT reform is dealt with in a different context.

3. The international dimension has been reinforced. This covers international arrangements, as well as the aspect of potential unilateral benefits accruing in third countries.

4. The importance of the initiative for SMEs has been further highlighted.

5. The need for EU intervention in light of the current experience with the development of policies in MS.

· Results from the stakeholder consultation are integrated into the body of the problem analysis.

2. Problem definition

2.1. Context and economic impact

In 1676, Isaac Newton famously wrote that "if I have seen further it is by standing on ye sholders of Giants." Today, it is truer than ever that all research builds on previous work and depends on scientists' ability to access and share scientific information. The advent of the Internet and electronic publishing has resulted in unprecedented possibilities for the dissemination and exchange of information. In today's "information economy", knowledge is a source of competitive advantage. For this reason alone, it is politically and economically crucial that there be wide and instant access to scientific information. The wide range of benefits to this would include:

– acceleration of the research and discovery process, leading to increased returns on R&D investment;

– avoidance of the duplication of research efforts, leading to savings in R&D expenditure;

– enhanced opportunities for multi-disciplinary research, as well as inter-institutional and inter-sectorial collaborations;

– broader and faster opportunities for the adoption and commercialisation of research findings, generating increased returns on public investment in R&D and the potential for the emergence of new industries based on scientific information.

A recent study[27] estimated the overall economic benefit from increased access to (publicly and privately funded) scientific information for the EU 27 at €6 billion a year. This implies potential economic benefits from increased access to scientific publications emanating from public funding at €1.8 billion a year.

The effect of limited access to scientific information on the competitiveness of SMEs was recently documented by a Danish Ministry for Research and Innovation report on access to scientific and technical information for innovative SMEs.[28] It illustrates the difficulties that SMEs in Denmark face in accessing research articles, patent information, scientific and technical standards, technical information, and market intelligence. The report states that it takes 2.2 years longer to develop or introduce new products without speedy access to up-to-date scientific research. For new products, a delay of 2.2 years means an average revenue loss of about 36 million DKK for Danish SMEs. The report concludes that there is a need for easier and cheaper access to research articles, patents, laws and regulations, and market information.

The potential benefits of better access to scientific information should be seen in the context of the high investment in R&D across the EU. This reached €245,673 billion in 2010 (2% of GDP)[29], a rise of 43.5 % in ten years.[30] A large part of investment in research in the EU is publicly funded (35%)[31], which gives the public sector an important say in determining how results should be disseminated for the benefit of economic growth and the society at large.[32] It is therefore crucial for public authorities to define ways to improve public access to the results of publicly funded research, in order for the maximum benefit to be drawn from Europe's investment in science.

Estimates[33] put the worldwide Science Technical and Medical (STM) publishing market (which includes journals, books, and secondary information services) at USD 16 billion (ca. EUR 11.6 billion). It is estimated that journal sales account for about 50% of the total STM publishing market, with a market value of USD 8 billion in 2008, up by 6-7% compared to 2007. . The total European STM publishing market was worth some EUR 2.4 -3.2 billion in 2008, giving it a 30%-40% of the total global STM publishing market[34].

Scientific publishing remains a solid and profitable industry, despite the economic crisis, the advent of the Internet, and the development of new business models and market entrants. For example, Elsevier, the world's largest publisher of scientific journals with almost 2000 journal titles, performed relatively well during the recession. In 2010, it made GBP 724 million (EUR 841 million) on revenues of GBP 2 billion (EUR 2.3 billion), an operating-profit margin of 36%.[35] Similarly, the results of Springer in 2010 were strong, with revenues reaching EUR 866 million and its EBITDA[36] reaching EUR 294 million, representing a 33.9 % return on sales. The Oxford University Press also presented solid results in March 2011, lead by solid sales growth in its academic arm.[37]

2.2. Problems to be addressed

On-line public consultations on both scientific information and the ERA highlight limited access to scientific publications and data as a key barrier towards the circulation of knowledge in Europe. In fact, the scholarly dissemination system is confronted with a series of problems that prevent European researchers from making full use of an integrated system of practices and infrastructures that allow easy, open access to, and re-use of, research results.

The 3 basic problems are: 1) limited access to research publications/scientific journals; 2) limited access to research data and 3) the preservation of scientific information (publications and data) for long-term access and use. These issues, which are often interconnected, are discussed in more detail below. Further background information on the scholarly communication and dissemination system is presented in Annex 1.

2.2.1. Access to research publications

The Internet has radically changed the way in which scientific publications are disseminated and consulted. Almost 90% of all scientific journals are now available online, yet scientific content is usually not freely available to the general public.[38] Appropriate access to scientific content on which to build new research is of crucial importance for the research community. Researchers' access remains linked to their affiliations with universities or other institutions (e.g. research funding organisations, libraries, governments). Therefore, access to this online scientific content relies not just on having Internet access, but on the journal subscriptions that only large institutions and their libraries can afford.

In many cases, this leads to limited access to scientific journals for individual researchers, SMEs and citizens at large. A large majority (83%) of respondents to the on-line public consultation on scientific information, in particular libraries and researchers, disagreed, or strongly disagreed, with the statement that there is no access problem in terms of scientific publications in Europe. This is supported by findings from the EU-funded study, PEER:[39] 34.4% of respondents have very often, or quite often, been unable to get 'quick and easy access to the peer-reviewed journal article' they would like to consult. 42.8% report that this has 'sometimes' been the case.[40] Only 22% of respondents say that they 'rarely' experience difficulties in accessing peer-reviewed articles. Limited access to scientific journals, and the resulting limitation of the dissemination and circulation of knowledge, restricts understanding of the latest research results, narrows the scope of obtained knowledge, stifles new scientific discoveries, and hinders progress in research and innovation, and, consequently, jobs and growth in Europe. Limited access restricts both the visibility of scientific research results, and their wider use.

Scientific publishing is a significant economic and profitable activity in its own right, publishers are eager to maintain the current status quo. Scientific publishers indicate in support of their case that access to scientific articles has never been better, in particular thanks to so-called "big deals", that is, bundles of journals that cost less than the sum of subscriptions to all the individual journals in the bundle. [41]

Limited access does not only affect European researchers and libraries. As the Danish study cited above[42] demonstrates, SMEs, and in particular high-technology SMEs, face significant hurdles to access scientific content which they consider important for the success of their companies.[43] The 2009 "Access by UK small and medium-sized enterprises to professional and academic information" reported that that 55% of SMEs had recently experienced difficulty accessing research articles.[44]

2.2.1.1. Journal subscription prices increase and library budgets are under pressure

A majority (89%) of the respondents to the on-line public consultation on scientific information identified the high prices of journals/subscriptions as the major barrier to access to scientific articles in Europe. Limited library budgets (85%) were also flagged as an important barrier to access to scientific articles in Europe. Over the last decades, subscription prices of scholarly journals have increased well above inflation (+3.5% pa).[45]

Figure 2: Scholarly (scientific) journals v total serials: % price increase 1990-2009[46]

The steady high annual price increase in the subscription fees of scientific journals is caused by several factors:

– The low level of competition: each individual journal title publishes research findings in a specialised field, has a unique branding and reputation, and a given Impact Factor (a traditional metric indicator for scholarly journal quality, along with citation counts.)[47] Publishers have a significant amount of discretion in setting prices, especially for journals with an excellent reputation;

– The annual growth in the number of scientific articles (+3.5%). This increase is reflected both by a growing number of journals and a higher number of articles per journal, in line with increasing expenditure on research and the number of researchers worldwide;

– Researchers demand and expect access to high quality journals and/or journals with high Impact Factors (meaning that their articles are cited more often than articles published in other journals); these journals cannot be substituted by other journals and therefore demand is price insensitive.

At the same time, libraries' budgets have been under pressure, a pressure which is likely to increase significantly because of the economic crisis. The 2010 US Study of Subscription Prices for Scholarly Society Journals[48] flagged up a list of universities that made significant institutional subscription cancellations in 2009, due to their inability to cope with current price increases. Similarly, Research Libraries UK (RLUK), which represents thirty major institutions (including Oxford, Cambridge and the London School of Economics), informed two major publishers that, unless they agree to a 15% reduction in prices, it would not renew its "big deal" contracts with them in 2012.

Scientific publishers indicate, on the other hand, that access to scientific articles has never been better, in particular thanks to so-called "big deals", that is bundles of journals that cost less than the sum of subscriptions to all the individual journals in the bundle.[49] However, the big deals do not necessarily reflect the needs of libraries who acquire content that they do not need. Also libraries of less well-endowed academic institutions still find it difficult to cope with the "big deal" prices. On top of it they cannot adjust their expenditure because cancelling individual subscriptions from the bundle will not lead to a reduced overall price under the "big deal" agreement. Their budgets are 'locked' due to the multiannual character of the 'big deal' agreements, making it difficult for new publishers to enter the market. Finally,

The combination of rising journal subscription prices and pressure on library budgets, risks further limiting access by researchers to scientific journals. In combination, these factors make it increasingly difficult for institutions to acquire all the journals to which they want to have access. This is also referred to as the "serial crisis".

One factor that contributes to the gap between the prices of electronic journals and library budgets is VAT. Under current EU VAT law, printed scientific publications are subject to a reduced VAT rate, while VAT on the same content delivered in electronic form is charged at the standard rate. 36% of respondents to the on-line public consultation on scientific information mentioned VAT as a factor hindering access to scientific content in Europe. The Communication on the future of VAT[50] stipulates that "[s]imilar goods and services should be subject to the same VAT rate and progress in technology should be taken into account in this respect, so that the challenge of convergence between the on-line and the physical environment is addressed."

2.2.1.2. The development of the open access movement

As a reaction to rising journal prices and the resulting pressure on libraries, there have been calls by the scientific community for a number of years for free, instant, internet access to scientific research results (including peer-reviewed journal articles). One of the main arguments of this 'open access movement' is that publicly funded research should be made available to the general public for free, as taxpayers have already contributed to the costs of its production.

Open access to scientific research results has taken two forms: the so-called ‘Gold Open Access’ and ‘Green Open Access’ models. Under the 'Gold Open Access' model, the costs of publishing are covered by authors rather than by reader subscriptions. In practice, funding bodies or universities pay the publishing costs upfront.

In the 'Green Open Access' model, the journal article – in a final or almost final version – is made available for free on the internet, either on an individual webpage of the author or within an institutional repository. Usually an embargo period is applied first, to allow the scientific publisher to recoup their costs and make a return on their investment.[51] The length of the embargo period itself depends on a number of factors[52], among them the length of time after which results are considered to be out of date, a time span that varies among disciplines. One can consider this time span to be shorter in the scientific, technological and medical fields and longer in the fields of social sciences and the humanities. Some funders[53], including the EU[54], have applied such a distinction, whereas others set the default rule of a six month embargo period and allow for exceptions[55].

In the on-line public consultation on scientific information, 88% of the respondents supported the idea that publicly funded research should be made available free of charge at some stage. All national and regional government and research funding organisation respondents agreed or agreed strongly. Out of the other stakeholder groups did also agree or agree strongly with the statement: 96% of libraries, 96% of citizens, 95% of universities/research institutes, 94% of individual researchers and 76% of international organisations. Publishers are the only group of stakeholders where a majority (67%) disagree or disagree strongly with the idea that that publications resulting from publicly funded research should, as a matter of principle, be in open access.

Self-archiving (Green OA), or a combination of self-archiving and OA publishing (Gold OA), were identified as the preferred ways of increasing the number and share of scientific publications available in OA mode. The majority (56% of respondents) prefer an embargo period (the period of time during which access to a publication is restricted) of six months.

Recent studies[56] suggest that 20% of the academic and scientific literature published worldwide in 2008 is now be freely available on the Web, 60% as Green OA and 40% as Gold OA.[57]

Figure 3: Percentage of scientific articles which are Open Access

Gold Open Access journal publishing saw rapid growth between 2000 and 2009, measured both in terms of total article output and number of OA journals.[58] [59] It is estimated that around 19,500 articles were published as OA in 2000, with the number rising to 191,850 in 2009. Journal numbers show considerable growth, though not as rapid as at the article-level, with an estimated 4,769 journals published as OA in 2009, compared to 740 in 2000.[60]

Publishers like BiomedCentral and Springer have already embarked on large-scale open access publishing models and the Howard Hughes Medical Institute, the Max Planck Society and the Wellcome Trust have announced plans to launch a open access journal in 2012 for biomedical and life sciences research. Elsevier reported to be the largest OA publisher.[61] The huge success of PLoS ONE, an open access journal published by the not-for-profit publisher Public Library of Science (PLoS)[62], has led other major publishers, Science, SAGE Publishing and/or the British Medical Journal to embark on similar OA activities.

Figure 4: Growth of OA articles and journals[63]

One key finding of the SOAP survey[64] is the large gap between support for open access publishing (around 90%) and actual open access publishing (around 10%). The main reasons were found to be a lack of easily accessible funding for open access publishing, as well as a lack of high reputation open access journals. The latter is a key issue for researchers, whose careers often depend on the number of times their articles are cited. While OA journals are improving their reputation, gaining visibility is a complex challenge. Some, such as the Public Library of Science (PLoS) journals[65] have impressive impact factors.

Recently, the debate around open access got heated, with scientists calling to boycott one of the leading commercial publishers by refusing to submit articles to their journals, or to carry out peer reviews for them.[66]

There are concerns about the effects of open access publishing under both the Green and Gold models.

On the one hand, publishers are afraid that a widespread implementation of "Green OA" mandates with too short embargo periods could lead librarians to cancel subscriptions. According to the industry, this would endanger the existence of individual journals and also potentially publishers themselves, in particular those with a small business portfolio (including the learned societies). Consequently, the overall impact on the existing scholarly dissemination system would be negative.

On the other hand, there are questions about the cost attached to a large-scale transition to "Gold OA", and who would pay for it, bearing in mind that 1.5 million scientific articles are published worldwide every year. Likewise, issue are raised about the transitional phase during which articles would be published under the Gold model as well as on a subscription basis. The concern is that subscription prices would not be reduced in parallel with the rising income for publishers from Gold Open Access publishing fees. Finally, there is the matter about keeping article processing costs under control under any 'Gold OA' system.

Self-archiving is facing a legal obstacle related to the current practice of copyright transfers by authors to publishers. Publishers argue that they need the copyright transfer in order to have an exclusive exploitation right ensuring that they will recoup their investment made into the publication process. Under this scenario, authors can only self-archive a version of their manuscript with the consent of the publisher, putting the publisher in a strong position. It is argued[67] that a system of non-exclusive licences should replace the current practice as it would allow for a more flexible management of IPR rights, in particular allowing for self-archiving along-side publication in a subscription-based journal and the right to re-use the information contained in the article. In any event a policy mandating self-archiving of articles after a defined embargo period will have an impact on either the exercise of the economic aspects of the copyright if transferred by the author or the extent to which an exclusive licence can be granted to the publisher.

2.2.2. Accessibility of research data

Observations and data collected during the research process underpin the results of published research. This raw data has a value in itself. It can be used to verify the results of the experiments, for further research in the same area, and it can also be combined with data from other research to work towards new cross-disciplinary discoveries.

As underlined in the Commission’s open data strategy,[68] scientific activities are increasingly undertaken through online global collaborations, using very large research data collections, huge computing resources and high performance visualisation. E-Science (research enabled by e-infrastructure/ICT) is essential for meeting the challenges of the 21st century in scientific discovery and learning. The data come from simulations, digital instruments, sensor nets, and observatories. The 2010 report ‘Riding the Wave’[69] underlined the crucial role of data for science, and its potential to change the very nature of the scientific process itself.

In the on-line public consultation, 86% of the respondents agreed on the development of an EU network of repositories.

The shift in the scientific process brought about by e-science will increase research productivity, and enable new and unexpected solutions to emerge in response to social challenges.

Currently, research data resulting from publicly funded research is not widely available for others to build upon. Moreover, even if it is available online, data is not necessarily presented in formats that facilitate its use and re-use. The vast majority (87%) of respondents to the on-line public consultation on scientific information disagreed, or strongly disagreed, with the statement that 'there is no access problem to research data in Europe.' In addition, there was strong support (89%) for public access to research data, and for the results of publicly funded research to be, as a matter of principle, available for re-use free of charge on the Internet. The main barriers to access to research data were identified as: the lack of funding to develop and maintain the necessary infrastructure (80%); insufficient credit given to researchers for making research data available (80%); insufficient national/regional strategies/policies (79%); and the lack of incentives for researchers (76.4%).

The EU-funded project PARSE-Insight[70] (Permanent Access to the Records of Science in Europe) found that researchers have difficulty in finding relevant data resources, and in re-using available datasets. Reasons ranged from access being denied to a lack of data manipulation skills or software. Only 25% of researchers state that they share their research data openly. 11% make it available for researchers within their research discipline, while 58% make it available within their specific research group. These figures tend to support the UK Research Data Service (UKRDS) survey,[71] which found that while informal sharing is common amongst researchers, overall they wish to keep control of their data.

This situation hinders the dissemination of knowledge, and results in a loss of efficiency of research investment.

The following key factors limit access to research data:

· Costs

There are many different kinds and categories of data generated at different stages of the research process. Designating which datasets ought to be made publicly available is a complex question. The costs in terms of effort and time needed to prepare data for depositing are viewed as a burden by researchers. Unless depositing is mandated by funders and research institutions, researchers have little incentive to make their data accessible for re-use. Costs are exploding as the generation of data (from scientific instruments or large scale simulations) rises exponentially, raising significant problems for the sustainability of long-term preservation for re-use.

· Lack of explicit career rewards and/or recognition for sharing data

The lack of explicit career rewards and/or recognition for researchers for depositing and sharing research data was highlighted in a UK RIN report as a major disincentive for granting OA to data.[72] Researchers who share their data are motivated by altruism, encouragement from peers, or hope of opening up opportunities for collaboration. However, most researchers wish to retain exclusive use of the data they have created until they have extracted all the publication value possible. When combined with the perceived lack of career rewards for data sharing, this constitutes a major constraint on making research data openly available. The insufficient credit given to researchers who make research data available was reported by 80% of the respondents to the on-line public consultation on scientific information, indicating that this is a barrier to enabling wider access to research data in Europe.

· Lack of the necessary and interoperable e-infrastructure

As the volume and diversity of scientific data increase, and as research becomes more multi-disciplinary and researchers struggle to connect and correlate data – especially if it comes from another academic discipline - reliable infrastructures for Digital Object Identifiers (DOIs), Digital Access Index (DAIs), AAA (Authentication, Authorization and Accounting), and metadata interoperability are required. To improve scientific efficiency and productivity, researchers will need a trusted system for finding, accessing, using and re-using data. Although ICT infrastructures (e-infrastructures) for data are now rapidly emerging in Europe and internationally, they are not necessarily interoperable across countries and disciplines, or are unsustainable due to lack of commonly agreed governance, legal frameworks and funding models.

The fact that this is a relatively new field suggests the possibility of pilot initiatives to uncover which rules and infrastructures would address the problem of data access in a cost effective way. Studies such as ODE (Opportunities for Data Exchange)[73] are providing the evidence and context for setting European strategies in this area.

The report 'Riding the wave'[74] argues that the most efficient way to address both the objective of widespread access to research, as well as its preservation for re-use, is to provide a collaborative and federated information infrastructure. According to the report, the essential attributes of this infrastructure would include flexibility, reliability, security and openness. It should have a strong European dimension and be well connected globally. It needs to achieve high standards of performance with contained costs through extensive collaboration of governments, funders, research organisations, companies and individuals. The collaborative and federated model for e-infrastructures has been previously implemented with success in the areas of research networks (GEANT), high performance computing (PRACE) and grid computing (EGI.eu).

The preservation of the software created to process, access, visualize and preserve scientific data should also be ensured. Without this infrastructure and the possibility to adapt it to the changing circumstances of the scientific data, the data itself would not be usable in most cases.

In this area further work would be undertaken regarding the interoperability of repositories, metadata and quality issues and building for example on the works of OpenAIRE or the Alliance for Permanent Access, enabling that the challenges related to preservation are undertaken. Moreover, the development of institutional repositories and implementation of institutional mandates would further expose results from publicly-funded research to the use and re-use by other researchers and potential commercial users.

· Other obstacles

Other disincentives to sharing research data include lack of time and resources, lack of experience and expertise in data management and provision of good metadata, legal[75] and ethical constraints, lack of an appropriate archive service, and fear of exploitation or inappropriate use of the data.

2.2.3. Preservation of scientific content

The preservation of scientific content is crucial in order to ensure permanent access to digital content over time. However, despite a widespread recognition of the importance of long-term preservation of scientific information the scientific community has limited incentives to engage in this area.

In the on-line public consultation on scientific information, 80% of the respondents indicated that the lack of appropriate financing and organisational models put the long-term preservation of patrimonial digital scientific material at risk: when critical data – whether about climate, new medicines or historic monuments, are needed later on, it might be too late.

2.2.3.1. Preservation of scientific journals

The PARSE-Insight study[76] that looked into the preservation of scientific content in Europe highlighted that the preservation of scientific journals is reasonably well organised. The publishers themselves often take care of preservation issues. Most scientific journals (93 %) are subject to preservation measures or policies implemented by publishers. However, there are also gaps: only 23% of small publishers report having a dedicated preservation strategy. Some publishers (52%) have transferred preservation responsibilities to a third party (for example, JSTOR, Portico, or LOCKSS). Some alternative solutions are being implemented, notably through national library services such as the e-Depot at the Koninklijke Bibliotheek in the Netherlands.

It should be noted that publishers are not always in the best position to preserve scientific material in the public interest, because the concept of "long term" in the world of science is often longer than the life of most publishing companies. Traditionally, the national ‘deposit libraries’ received one or more copies of all scientific journals for preservation purposes. 69% of respondents to the on-line public consultation on scientific information indicated that the obligation for content producers to make one or more copies of scientific materials available to a designated deposit body is a central issue for the preservation of digital scientific publications.

Legal deposit legislation across the EU is being adapted to the digital age, but scientific publications are not fully covered, which may put the long-term preservation of these publications at risk.

2.2.3.2. Preservation of scientific data

There are many reasons to support the preservation and sharing of research data: it allows for the re-analysis of existing data, enables greater cross-sector collaboration and opportunities within education and training, and reduces the cost of collection and duplication. Furthermore, in many scientific fields each dataset is unique, costly and irreproducible; if the data is not preserved it is lost for ever. In the area of earth sciences,[77] for example, it is impossible to go back in time and resample environmental data, given the variability of the state of the Earth and its environment over time. Earth observations are of unique value in understanding climate change and natural hazards, and in developing an appropriate response to global and regional climate change and related threats.

However, very few research funding organisations, research infrastructures and universities undertake proper research data preservation activities. Results from a study that looked into the current state of affairs in Europe show that individual researchers are generally unaware of the need to preserve data for the long term, nor of the best ways to do so. According to the PARSE-Insight study, only 20% of researchers submit data to a digital archive. 40% of researchers report that they store between 1 Gigabyte and 1 Terabyte of data, whilst 11% reported that they were unaware of how much information they stored. Some preserved their research data on a PC at work or on the server of the institution they belong to (59%), or, in many cases, on a personal computer at home (51%).

The key question of who should be responsible for long-term preservation and its funding remains unresolved. Moreover, different academic communities have different approaches, and their preservation strategies are at different stages of development. There is a consensus that each particular research field should develop partnerships with data scientists or informatics specialists with domain expertise to ensure effective curation, and preparation for deposit, of articles. However, this does not solve the problem of the funding and overall responsibility for the preservation of scientific content.

2.3. Stakeholder analysis: who is affected and how?

Limited access to research publications and raw data, and the lack of preservation of both publications and data, negatively impact on a number of stakeholders.

2.3.1. Researchers

Their research generates data. They write articles and review those of their peers. They value the importance of making their work widely available and better preserving the research data they make accessible, but are not always aware of the importance of their role. However, access to scientific publications remains a problem for 4 out of 5 researchers,[78] while access to underlying research data is a problem for almost 90% of them.[79] Likewise, the lack of appropriate preservation of scientific publications and data negatively impacts the work and careers of researchers. Open access publishing increases the visibility of researchers' publications and therefore their research impact.[80]

2.3.2. Businesses, including SMEs

SMEs do not usually have in-house research labs/departments. They therefore rely on access to scientific literature in order to be able to innovate. The present lack of open access to scientific publications impacts negatively on the capacity of SMEs to innovate. As described above,[81] it may take SMEs 2.2 years longer to develop/launch a product to the market without open access to scientific publications.

2.3.3. Scientific publishers

Publishers are, in general, comfortable with the status quo. The market is characterised by a large amount of traditional journal publishers. Many publish journals on behalf of learned societies who seek revenue from subscriptions to fund activities such as academic conferences. Most commercial publishers today offer some kind of open access publishing option under the Gold OA model, and allow for some sort of self archiving. There is also an increasing number of publishers who exclusively publish open access journals.

2.3.4. Governments (national/ sub-state level)

The cost of acquisition of academic literature by academic libraries is a matter of concern for governments, since they are one of the principal sources of research funding, and the most important funders for higher academic institutions. A move towards open access publishing could lower overall costs for Governments when purchasing scientific content, as well as maximising their social and economic returns in terms of increased visibility for research and wider access to scientific output. The lack of appropriate preservation policies leads to a loss of scientific and cultural heritage. Research may need to be funded twice when past results are no longer accessible.

2.3.5. Academic institutions (including their libraries)

Academic libraries struggle with rising subscription prices. The budgets for acquisition of academic literature by academic libraries have been strained over the years by a growth of subscription prices well beyond inflation.[82] Sometimes a rise of subscription prices in the area of science, technical and medical publishing is covered at the expense of publication subscriptions in the field of arts and humanities. The current absence of policies favouring open access publishing negatively impacts on library budgets, and on the amount of content they can purchase. The absence of open access publishing can also negatively impact on the global visibility and reputation of academic institutions, and potentially hinder their ability to attract funding, new faculty members and potential students.

2.3.6. Citizens

Citizens and individual professionals, such as doctors and pharmacists, need easy access to scientific research results, without the need to be affiliated to an academic library. The current absence of easy and open access negatively impacts on their capacity to benefit from up to date knowledge in their daily practice.

2.4. The EU dimension

2.4.1. Treaty Base

The right of the EU to act in this field is set out in the Treaty on European Union (TEU) and in the Treaty on the functioning of the European Union (TFEU). Firstly, the promotion of scientific and technological advance in its own right became a specific objective of the Union for the first time, with Article 3(3) TEU. In addition, Article 179(1), (2) of the TFEU references the ERA as the way to strengthen the scientific and technological bases of the Union, whereby scientific knowledge is mentioned as a key characteristic of the ERA. Finally, Article 182(5) TFEU provides a legal basis for taking the measures necessary for the implementation of the ERA. The European added value lies in maximising the social and economic value of Europe’s investments in Research and Development.

2.4.2. Subsidiarity test

In order for Union action to be justified, the subsidiarity and proportionality principles need to be respected.

Action in this area at European level is necessary to avoid further fragmentation across the EU and to take into account the cross-border nature of the scientific dissemination process. In all Member States initiatives exist to facilitate and enable wider access to and preservation of scientific information, but the intensity and focus of effort vary. Multiple initiatives have confronted European researchers, research funding bodies and citizens with overlapping policies and e-infrastructure development progressing at different speed. As shown by the baseline scenario outlined below, there is a serious risk of current fragmentation persisting or getting worse.

The aim of the initiative is to narrow the gaps between policy and practice in Member States, and thereby contribute to the fifth freedom and the development of the ERA. Moreover, it will stimulate the creation of EU-wide products and services based on scientific information (e.g. e-science).

Political, legislative and strategic interaction at European level is required in order to offer Member States and stakeholders a supportive framework to seize the opportunity of wider access to scientific information. This requires the type of co-ordination that can only be facilitated at the European level with input from all stakeholder groups, and which cannot be achieved by Member States alone.

In terms of the proportionality of EU action, the proposal would need to provide Member States with sufficient room to determine the specific conditions for pursuing and implementing policies to improve the access to, and preservation of, scientific information. It should also take into account the varying needs between scientific disciplines, universities and research funding organisations, as well as the different stage of development of the relevant policies and practices in Member States.

2.5. Baseline scenario

The baseline scenario would propose no policy change and would largely maintain the current policy approach to access to, and preservation of, scientific information in Europe. The access to, and preservation of, scientific output would continue to build on existing legal frameworks at Member State or European level, and policies would continue to largely depend on varying national initiatives.

2.5.1. Fragmentation of national OA policies

As reported in the National Open Access and Preservation Policies in Europe Report,[83] Member States are putting strategies in place regarding access and dissemination. Eight reported implementing a national policy, and five reported action at a regional level. The approaches vary widely. This makes it difficult to move in an orderly way to a more open dissemination model for scientific information across the EU that would benefit all stakeholders.

For example, Denmark adopted recommendations as to how to implement the 2007 Council Conclusions on Scientific Information at a national level, and Sweden has a national open access programme. In contrast Germany has chosen to develop strategies at a stakeholder level, Estonia adopted a Research Infrastructure Roadmap and Ireland has put in place a network of institutional repositories and a "national harvester". From the legislative point of view, only eight Member States have adopted laws or legal provisions encouraging or mandating open access – the UK has very recently announced that publicly funded research should be open access[84]. 17 Member States have funding bodies that implement open access policies. The Austria Science Fund has developed an OA policy for all the research programmes they fund, s has the Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft (DFG). The number of Member States where universities implement open access has risen to 22, as of 2009. In the Netherlands, all universities have some sort of OA policy.

2.5.2. Divergence regarding developing the e-infrastructure for open access

Considerable differences also exist in the development of e-infrastructures, both from an organisational and technical point of view.

The University of Finland, for example, provides a centralised repository for the benefit of all Finnish Universities. Ireland's approach has been to set up a central register to harvest the content of the different institutional repositories. In order to ensure repository quality, Germany and Spain have developed quality certification services to ensure a minimum quality regarding operation, collection, development for compliant repositories. Other Member States have no such certification measures.

The EU funded project OpenAIRE (based on the former DRIVER project) implements a network of institutional repositories with common European standards, which many institutions are applying.[85] Some Member States, such as Germany, the UK, Finland and France, are aiming to interconnect their repository infrastructure so that a large digital library for scientist and researchers can be established.

Figure 5: OpenAIRE currently links 72 repositories in 27 Member States.

2.5.3. Fragmentation regarding research data

The picture is also fragmented with regard to access to research data. Currently, not all Member States have explicit policies and/or arrangements for research data, but there are bodies that encourage making research data widely available and accessible. Germany, for example, has set up a research data centre to facilitate research data access. Slovenia has emphasised the need for free access to research data, and the UK research councils are developing a set of principles on the subject.

It seems that research data practices are implemented in the EU only in very specific research domains varying by Member State. At the federal level in Belgium, for example, the focus is on meteorological data, while at regional level it is on marine and coastal research data. Social research data is of interest in Austria, Finland, Slovenia and the UK. The policies for the data deposit process and conditions for access that are being implemented are very different across research disciplines, institutions and Member States.

There is a real risk that infrastructures for access and management of research data develop uncoordinated in Member States, hampering scientific progress. Therefore, action is required at European level to promote interoperability. In contrast to individual Member States, the EU can play the important role of coordinating existing (or future) national policies on data access, preservation and management, through a combination of policy measures and operational activities.

2.5.4. Lack of preservation policies in EU

The approaches of Member States to preserving scientific content also vary considerably. Most have updated, or are updating, their legal deposit legislation to take into account the requirements of the digital age, but the material covered varies. For example, the UK is currently consulting on whether the legal deposit system could be extended to cover born-digital media, such as e-journals. As for the long-term preservation of research data, policies are sketchy and often lack the operational and organisational implementation structures needed.

2.6. Conclusion on the baseline scenario

Member States are working to improve the access to, and preservation of, scientific information, but not necessarily at the same speed. The priorities and focus of Member States differ widely, and national policies could easily remain isolated. In this baseline scenario, it would be up to individual institutions or Member States to share good practice with other research communities and institutions. No benefit would be drawn from the scale of the internal information market.

In this scenario, the potential benefits of wider access to research publications, estimated at 1.8 billion EUR a year for the EU27 (see section 2.1), would not or only be very partially realised.

3. Objectives

3.1. General policy objectives and more specific/operational objectives

Free, wider and easier access to scientific information generated through public funding would allow the benefits of science to be exploited by researchers, industries and citizens in scientific endeavour, business innovation and whatever unexpected re-use they may think of. The general objective of EU action in this field is to provide stronger support to innovation and contribute to economic growth by improving the conditions for the access to and re-use of scientific information and enabling the development of the ERA. This general objective is fully in line with the horizontal EU level strategies, in particular the 2010 Communication from the Commission Europe 2020.

Specific objectives include:

(1) Scientific publications become openly accessible online for free, as far as possible and as soon as possible;

(2) Research data is made openly accessible online, for free;

(3) Scientific information (publications and data) is preserved for future generations;

(4) Access to scientific information (publications and data) across Member States is facilitated.

The implementation of better policies on access to, and preservation of, scientific information, requires the timely establishment of Europe-wide partnerships. In this context, the operational objectives of this proposal are:

In relation to the specific objective (1):

Stimulate the implementation of open access policies for scientific publications by 2014 that:

– increase the number of publications resulting from public funding available in open access to 60% by 2016;

– increase the number of open access mandates;

– improve the funding conditions for Gold open access.

In relation to the specific objective (2):

Stimulate the implementation of open access policies for data that:

– require the deposit of research data resulting from public funding in an e-infrastructure;

– support the set-up and the maintenance of digital e-infrastructures

In relation to specific objective (3):

– Support the set-up and the maintenance of digital e-infrastructures for preservation

– Promote effective deposit systems for digitally-born scientific information

In relation to specific objective (4):

– Ensure full interoperability between e-infrastructures across and outside the EU;

– Promote federated access to scientific content;

– Promote co-ordination of policies and exchange of good practices and stakeholder dialogue at European level.

This proposal will not deal with the issues of differences in VAT rates for print and electronic versions of the same publication. Although this presents a problem,[86] the proposed policy action will not address it. The discussion on reduced VAT rates needs to be addressed in the more comprehensive, ongoing context of VAT reform rather than singling out the case of scientific publications.[87]

3.2. Related policies

EU policy in the area of scientific information aims at developing the widest possible accessibility and availability of scientific output for both use and re-use by European researchers and interested parties, in particular innovative industries. Policy objectives in the area of scientific information are consistent with the following horizontal EU objectives:

3.2.1. EU growth strategy Europe 2020 and its flagship initiatives

The initiative contributes to, and is fully aligned with, the EU’s growth strategy and, in particular, with two of its flagship initiatives: the Digital Agenda for Europe and the Innovation Union.

One of the objectives mentioned in the 2010 Communication of the Commission on the Flagship Initiative Innovation Union is to promote openness and capitalise on Europe's creative potential. Speeding up research and innovation through better access to scientific information contributes to this aim. Companies innovate in various ways; while some conduct R&D and develop new technologies, others base their innovation on existing technologies. Policies must be designed to support all forms of innovation. The Communication announces that the Commission will promote open access to the results of publicly funded research and in particular make open access to publications the "general principle" for projects funded by the EU research Framework Programmes. Increasing the accessibility of research outputs emanating from publicly funded research is also instrumental in enhancing the overall transparency and accountability of national institutions vis-à-vis their tax payers.

3.2.2. EU policy in the area of open data

The Commission has been at the forefront of open data development through a series of initiatives, in particular the Directive on the re-use of public sector information (Directive 2003/98/EC). The goals of the Commission's open data strategy are to stimulate the public sector across the EU to embrace the principles of open data, increase transparency and administrative efficiency by releasing public data for re-use, and create optimal conditions for innovation and business development based on re-use. On 12 December 2011 the Commission adopted an Open Data strategy.[88] The underlying philosophy of this Communication is that citizens and the society as a whole will benefit from a more open flow of a variety of information. One element of the strategy is a revision of the 2003 Directive. According to the proposal, research and educational establishments remain outside the scope of application of the Directive, in view of the relatively complicated situation as regards third party rights (intellectual property rights not owned by the research institution, but for example by a university professor). In this context the principle that public sector information should be available for free or, at most, at the marginal cost of dissemination, is fully in line with the principle of open access.

3.2.3. Horizon 2020 and the European Research Area (ERA) framework

As described in detail in Section 1 and 2, the area of access to, and preservation of, scientific information is intimately linked to European research and innovation policy. OA policies also apply to research funded at EU-level. Following on from the Communication on the Flagship Initiative Innovation Union, the proposed Horizon 2020 implementation rules[89] specify that "[w]ith regard to dissemination through research publications, open access shall apply under the terms and conditions laid down in the grant agreement. With regard to dissemination of other results, including research data, the grant agreement may lay down the terms and conditions under which open access to such results must be provided, in particular in ERC frontier research or any other appropriate areas." In addition, in late 2007, the European Research Council (ERC) adopted an OA mandate requiring that all peer-reviewed publications emanating from ERC-funded research projects be deposited on publication into an institutional repository, and made available via open access within six months of publication.[90] The Commission is also supporting open access in the ERA framework. A Communication on "A Reinforced European Research Area Partnership for Excellence and Growth"[91] will set out five key priorities for the completion of the ERA, among them open access.

3.2.4. The Commission's policy regarding open access in the programmes for research and innovation

The Commission will implement an open access policy intended to contribute to improving the access to EU-funded scientific research. As an important research funding body, the Commission is setting an example through the implementation of the forthcoming Horizon 2020 programme. The Commission will require that there be open access to all scientific publications emanating from EU-funded research. The specific details on the implementation of this open access policy will be spelled out in the Rules of Participation of the programme. It will build upon the experience of 7th Framework programme for research and development ( FP7 budget) pilot open access exercise launched in 2008 which covered about 20% of the FP7 budget. In this pilot exercise researchers were required to deposit their research publications after an agreed embargo period (6-12 months). In addition the Commission Framework programme also allows for the "Gold Open Access" route. Gold open access fees are considered as eligible cost in EU grants.

3.2.5. The Commission's journal publication scheme

With specific regard to the wealth of scientific information produced by Joint Research Centre (JRC) and with an aim to structure and harmonise the publication of works authored by the staff of the Commission in peer-reviewed journals, the Commission is negotiating the adoption of a one-off framework agreement establishing uniform terms and conditions with several publishers. This publication scheme, EC PLUG, will allow EU-Euratom to retain all its rights with respect to works authored or co-authored by EC staff, and establish an embargo period before they can be reproduced or distributed more widely.

3.3. The international framework

Major nations in research and development are increasingly implementing OA mandates, investing in open access and supporting research infrastructures. Currently, there are more than 200 OA mandates worldwide.[92] For example in the US 44 OA mandates are being implemented. Most notably, the National Institutes of Health (NIH), the biggest funder of medical research in the world, has a 12-month embargo period OA mandate. PubMedCentral (PMC), which hosts NIH research papers, is the world’s largest open access repository, holding over 3 million items The Canadian Institute of Health, the Australian Research Council and the Chinese Academy of Sciences, to name just a few, also implement OA policies. Universities such as Harvard, Yale and MIT are also moving to open access. The arXiv repository, managed by the University of Cornell, provides open access to 731,853 e-prints in Physics, Mathematics, Computer Science, Quantitative Biology, Quantitative Finance and Statistics.[93]

In the US, the mandating policy of the NIH has led to a political debate, giving rise to the introduction of two bills in US Congress, in 2006 and 2009, aiming at either restricting or encouraging the mandating policy of the NIH.[94] The most recent bill, the 'Research Works Act,' was particularly controversial. It was designed to prohibit the open access funding mandates by federal research funding agencies, and triggered vociferous reaction in the scientific community.[95] It was withdrawn in February 2012.[96] Currently, work is being undertaken by the Office of Science and Technology Policy (OSTP), part of the Executive Office of the US President, to advance the debate on open access.[97]

OA policies are also being set up in developing countries and emerging markets, with the objective of increasing the international visibility of their research, and of facilitating scientific exchange.[98]

Figure 6: Proportion of Repositories by Continent - Worldwide[99]

At the international level, UNESCO and the OECD are active in promoting better access to scientific information. UNESCO has recently updated its Open Access strategy.[100] It centres around three strands:

(1) Provision of upstream policy advice and building partnerships;

(2) Strengthening capacities to adopt OA;

(3) Serve as a clearing-house and inform the global OA debate.

On the last item, UNESCO provides comprehensive country reports on the development of OA policies around the world. The strategy is mainly focused on exchange of best practice.

The OECD Declaration on Access to Research Data from Public Funding was adopted by the 30 OECD countries and China, Israel, Russia and South Africa.[101] It sets out 13 principles that should govern access to research data, which ought to be implemented by the signatories.

4. Policy options

This section examines a range of options for addressing the problems highlighted in previous sections. For the purposes of this IA, the options discussed will be the following:

(1) Discontinuing existing EU action

(2) No policy change (Baseline scenario)

(3) Providing a policy framework to MS in the form of soft law

(4) Approximation of MS legislation

4.1. Discontinuing existing EU action

This option would result in the removal of all the soft measures, including any implementing measure, currently contained in the Council Conclusions on Scientific Information.[102] Certain Member States, mostly the more research-intensive ones, would continue to promote open access policies and reap the benefits. A certain degree of exchange of best practice may occur, but this is likely to happen in a haphazard way without any structured exchange. Long-term preservation of scientific information will continue to happen occasionally and in a non-systematic manner. The EU would not address problems and would no longer support the process through its multiple roles, funding or co-funding of infrastructures and projects (FP7 Capacities and CIP) and policy making. All action in the development of research infrastructures aimed at achieving a lasting EU-level infrastructure, as well as all associated actions to support researchers, research funding organisations and scientific communities, would be discontinued. Moreover, the particular role of the Commission and European institutions in relation to different stakeholders would be abandoned.

4.2. No policy change (Baseline scenario)

This option, which would maintain the current approach, has been described in detail in section 2.5. Within this baseline scenario, it is possible to continue the work within the "ERAC Working Group on Knowledge Transfer" in conducting peer learning activities and exchange of good practices, reinforcing the process of policy learning and thereby increasing the effectiveness of measures taken. Elements of evidence-based, comprehensive and consistent policies can be presented by the Commission and discussed with, and by, Member States, but there would be no formal commitment on their part to such an approach as a basis for future policy development. Funding with the CIP, Science and Society/ Responsible Research and Innovation and the Capacities Programme and Future Horizon 2020 could prioritise effective measures to improve access to scientific information in Europe, and elements of evidence based, comprehensive and consistent policies could provide guidance to Member States on how to improve their initiatives.

Market and regulatory developments will continue to take place irrespectively of a change in the policy. The number of OA journals and OA content will continue to grow modestly. Traditional publishers will continue to offer hybrid OA alternatives, experiment with different OA business models, and innovate on approaches in order to reduce costs.[103] Many countries and international fora (see section 3.3) consider OA as reliable way to increase access to scientific information, and will continue to pursue this avenue.

The OpenAire infrastructure will be further developed into OpenAirePlus, adding a feature to integrate research data and link publications to data.

However, disparities are likely to become stronger between larger and/or more research-intensive MS and others. Long-term preservation of scientific information will continue to happen occasionally and in a non-systematic manner.

The alignment of the VAT rates for electronic and on-paper publications will be addressed in a separate process. The Communication on the future of the VAT[104] announces a specific revision process on the structure of VAT rates with a proposal expected for the end of 2013.

4.3. Providing a policy framework to MS in the form of soft law

Under this option, a policy framework would be provided to Member States in order to help them develop and implement policies on access to, and preservation of, scientific information (scientific articles and research data). The framework would take a holistic approach in order to substantially improve the access to scientific information in Europe, whether it results from public or private funding.

It would set the general policy objective of widening access to both publications and research data, leaving it to relevant actors in MS to decide which particular open access policy best meets their needs. The policy framework would require the relevant actors in the MS to set up open access mandates requiring all publications and data resulting from publicly-funded research (in whole or in part) to be openly accessible and ensure compliance. Should MS opt to apply the 'Green OA' model, however, certain limitations would apply in terms of the embargo periods to be applied to self-archiving of publications: An embargo period of six months would apply in all fields except the social sciences and humanities where a twelve-month period would apply. The difference in treatment is justified by the longer half-life of research results in social sciences and humanities. Green open access requires the existence of digital e-infrastructures, i.e. online repositories for self-archiving of articles by authors. The policy framework would require the creation, funding and maintenance of such e-infrastructures, as well as the setting of quality standards, if they do not exist already[105]. It should not necessarily require the creation of such e-infrastructures in each MS. MS may want to cooperate on this. In order to ensure compliance with the open access mandates, academic institutions and research funding organisations would be required to reward scientists by taking compliance into account for career evaluations and for the award of research grants.

Scientists will be required to exercise their intellectual property rights in a way compliant with the OA mandates by replacing the current practice of assigning the economic aspects of the copyright to publishers with a system of licences. The length of an exclusive licence to be granted under the Green OA model is clearly linked to the length of the embargo periods as the licence is the legal reflection of agreed embargo period. This aspect of the policy framework leaves the current legislative framework on IPR intact while limiting their contractual freedom to assign their copyright to publishers.

The policy framework is sufficiently flexible to be able to accommodate new technological developments, and allows for the establishment of new modes of cooperation among scientists offered by Web 2.0.[106]

It provides for the adoption of comprehensive policies in the area of preservation, and the development of e-infrastructure in the Member States within their research communities.

The policy framework will provide for a monitoring mechanism based on regular reporting obligations. These reporting obligations will include reporting on quantifiable indicators such as the number of open access mandates adopted and the compliance rates with those mandates, as well as the situation of digital e-infrastructures and their technical standards.[107]

The proposed policy framework is based on current experience with efforts to widen access to scientific information in some Member States.[108] It can be adapted to the specific situation in Member States, be it at national or regional level, or at the level of universities/funding bodies.

This framework can also serve as the basis of, and as an agenda for, future cooperation between Member States. It will steer future policy developments at EU level and guide the effective and efficient use of EU funding. Its added value is based in laying the foundations for further work within Member States and, at EU level, in guiding effective cooperation between Member States and providing a good starting point for effective and efficient policies to improve access to, and preservation of, scientific information in Europe.

A Communication and a Recommendation to the Member States adopted by the Commission would describe the intended policy framework. The Recommendation would specify the key features of the policy, although in a non binding manner and providing flexibility for MS for its implementation. Their effect can be improved by targeting funding opportunities better, and by measuring them against their contribution to improving access to, and preservation of, scientific information in Europe. Obligations on regular reporting would allow the Commission to monitor uptake by Member States and to give additional guidance where necessary and appropriate.

4.4. Approximation of MS legislation

Under this option, the Commission would reinforce EU intervention in this field by adopting a Directive. Article 182(5) of the TFEU provides a legal basis for taking the measures necessary for the implementation of the ERA, including the adoption of a Directive.

The proposed policy framework (as explained under 4.3.) would be implemented by a Directive requiring an approximation of laws relating to access to, and preservation of, scientific information.

5. Assessment of the options

For the purposes of this IA, the analysis is limited to a general assessment of the possible options aimed at approximating and reinforcing national access and preservation policies. Policy options have been identified on the basis of both actions (access to scientific publications and research data, and their preservation) and the nature of the measures proposed (whether legally binding or not). The latter is relevant in this context, given that the legal nature of the measures proposed is likely to have a significant impact on the degree to which the objectives of improving access, ensuring preservation and enabling synergies, can be better achieved. The analysis also takes into account the effect on other stakeholders, and issues relating to proportionality, subsidiary and rights.

Options are compared with regard to their effectiveness (the extent to which options achieve the objectives of the proposal) and efficiency (the extent to which objectives can be achieved for a given level of resources/at the lowest cost).

This section presents the qualitative and, where possible in this field, quantitative assessment of the impact of each of the four policy options in the light of the problems and opportunities from section 2, and the policy objectives identified in Section 3. The main areas of potential impact are economic and social. Any policy in this area must ensure that there is a level playing field and that a disproportionate burden is not imposed on stakeholders. More information on the expected effects and potential impacts can be found in the Annexes.

5.1. Discontinuing existing EU action

This option would result in the removal of all the soft obligations currently contained in the Council Conclusions on scientific information in the digital age, including any implementing measures.

5.1.1. Impacts related to access, re-use and preservation of scientific information

European researchers would have to rely solely on the commitment and resources of their Member States, and on the market, to provide solutions for wider access to, and preservation of, the results of publicly funded research. This would create imbalances between Member States and their scientific communities, given the different speeds and different approaches currently in place. Consequently, the conditions for wider access to scientific information in Europe would diminish. This complexity would have detrimental repercussions on the free movement of scientific information and scientists across the EU.

5.1.2. Economic impact

A discontinuation of EU action would lead to increased problems in the circulation of scientific knowledge. This would hamper the innovation capacity of European industry and have consequences for the development of the European scientific knowledge base. A discontinuation of the policy would increase the risk of uncertainty (as Member States would each go their own way). In this scenario, scientific publishers would have fewer incentives to innovate and adapt their current business models, experiment with new paradigms, and seek alternative sources of revenue.

In the long run, this option would lead to wider fragmentation of the internal market and, probably, an unnecessary multiplication of efforts and costs at all levels. The potential benefits of wider access to scientific information identified in section 1 would not materialise.

5.1.3. Impact on stakeholders

5.1.3.1. Impact on researchers

Given the ‘serials-crisis’ described in section 2, access to information across Europe would be likely to deteriorate. The ability of researchers to access scientific information would depend on the financial strength of the institution they work for, or of the Member States where they live.

5.1.3.2. Impact on academic libraries

Libraries would be faced with prohibitive price increases in their journal subscriptions, leading to a high rate of subscription cancellation. This would have a knock-on effect on journals/ monographs in the humanities, since these are normally the first to be dropped by librarians in order to accommodate STM content within reduced budgets. Given a lack of European intervention, the opportunity for economies of scale for purchasing content, or to address libraries' concerns about undertaking preservation responsibilities, would be limited.

5.1.3.3. Impact on scientific publishers

Under this option, traditional publishers would continue to pursue business as usual and would not be forced to adapt to the current "open access" environment and to begin the transition process towards new business models and areas of added-value. This option would have a negative impact on the emerging set of open access publishers, who have embraced the concept and are successfully pursuing open access publishing.

5.1.4. Financial impact

This option would have a negative impact on governments/public sector budgets and/or impact negatively on the value for money ratio of public investment in scientific information. Journal prices would continue to increase and economies of scale would not be attained.

5.1.5. Social & environmental impacts

Insufficient circulation of scientific knowledge will hamper the innovation capacity of European industry, as well as the capacity of our researchers to address social challenges. This will, in turn, have negative social and environmental consequences. Wide access to research data in relevant areas could also contribute considerably to better policy making.

5.2. No policy change (baseline scenario)

Under this option, no specific incentive would be given by the EU, meaning that co-ordination among Member States and research funding organisations would not be formally supported at a European level. Co-ordination among national initiatives (in order to avoid redundancy and to enhance European synergies) would rely upon informal, transnational or international networks, rather than European ones. Initiatives demonstrating significant European added value would continue to be funded under the general framework of EU programmes, without being given specific priority.

5.2.1. Impacts related to access, re-use and preservation of scientific information

There is a significant risk that, in the short term, the baseline scenario would discourage some Member States from moving forward with open access, and that it would result in them adopting a "wait and see" approach. As developments at national or regional level are based upon a variety of considerations and criteria, European researchers would have to continue to cope with uncertainty and unpredictability in their working environment. Under this option, current access to, and preservation of, scientific information would remain unchanged, as described previously. European researchers would have to rely solely on the commitment and resources of their Member States, and on the market, to provide solutions for wider access to and preservation of the results of publicly funded research. This would create imbalances betwee