COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT IMPACT ASSESSMENT Accompanying the document COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION ON ACCESS TO AND PRESERVATION OF SCIENTIFIC INFORMATION IN THE DIGITAL AGE
Date: 2012-07-17
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: cultural transmission, diffusion of innovations, dissemination of information, research and development, research budget, research expenditure (EU), scientific cooperation, scientific progress, technological change

EUROPEAN COMMISSION 

Brussels, 17.7.2012  
SWD(2012) 222 final 

COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT 

IMPACT ASSESSMENT 

Accompanying the document 

COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION 

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

{C(2012) 4890 final} 
{SWD(2012) 221 final} 

EN 

   EN 

 
 
 
 
  
 
COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT 

IMPACT ASSESSMENT 

Accompanying the document 

COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION 

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

EN 

2 

   EN 

 
TABLE OF CONTENTS 

1. 

1.1. 

1.2. 

1.3. 

1.4. 

1.5. 

2. 

2.1. 

2.2. 

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

Introduction .................................................................................................................. 7 

Background .................................................................................................................. 7 

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

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

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

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

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

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 

EN 

3 

   EN 

 
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. 

3.1. 

3.2. 

Objectives................................................................................................................... 32 

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

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. 

4.1. 

4.2. 

4.3. 

4.4. 

5. 

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

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

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

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

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

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 

EN 

4 

   EN 

 
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 benefits46 

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. 

5.5. 

5.6. 

5.7. 

6. 

6.1. 

6.2. 

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

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

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

Conclusion ................................................................................................................. 63 

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

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

Evaluation .................................................................................................................. 64 

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

Annex 2: Executive summary of the 2011 Questionnaire to European Research Area Council81 

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 

EN 

5 

   EN 

 
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. 

1 
2 
3 

http://europa.eu/press_room/pdf/complet_en_barroso___007_-_europe_2020_-_en_version.pdf 
COM(2007) 56 final of 14.04.2007 
Council conclusions of 22 November 2007 on scientific information in the digital age: access, 
dissemination and preservation, available at 
http://ec.europa.eu/information_society/activities/digital_libraries/doc/scientific_information/council_c
onclusions_nov2007.pdf 

EN 

6 

   EN 

 
                                                 
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 
Communication6  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  Information8  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 research11. The specific rules which will apply to the 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

http://ec.europa.eu/research/innovation-union/pdf/innovation-union-communication_en.pdf 
http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=COM:2010:0245:FIN:EN:PDF 
http://ec.europa.eu/information_society/policy/psi/docs/pdfs/opendata2012/open_data_communication/en.pdf 
http://ec.europa.eu/research/era/index_en.htm 
See footnote 3 above 
http://ec.europa.eu/research/science-society/index.cfm?fuseaction=public.topic&id=1300&lang=1 
http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=COM:2011:0808:FIN:en:PDF 
http://ec.europa.eu/research/horizon2020/pdf/proposals/proposal_for_a_regulation_of_the_european_parliament 
_and_of_the_council_laying_down_the_rules_for_the_participation_and_dissemination_in_horizon_2020%20(2014-
2020).pdf#view=fit&pagemode=none 

EN 

7 

   EN 

 
                                                 
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: 

• 

• 

• 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

The  project  Study  of  Open  Access  Publishing16  (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 publishing17 
(also called Gold OA); 

The on-going project Publishing and the Ecology of European Research18 (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  Europe19  (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 

Agenda item 2011/INFSO+/031 
http://www.rin.ac.uk/our-work/communicating-and-disseminating-research 
See for example: http://ec.europa.eu/research/science-society/pdf/scientific-publication-study_en.pdf and the footnotes below 
http://www.publishingresearch.net/projects.htm 
http://project-soap.eu/ 
An explanation of the different routes toward open access, in particular "green" (self-archiving) or "gold" (paid) OA is provided 
in Annex 1. 
http://www.peerproject.eu/ 
www.openaire.eu  
http://www.openaire.eu/fr/component/openaire/statspublications/default/539 

EN 

8 

   EN 

 
                                                 
 
• 

• 

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  

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

"Riding the wave": http://ec.europa.eu/information_society/newsroom/cf/itemlongdetail.cfm?item_id=6204 
Reports from these workshops can be found here: 
http://ec.europa.eu/research/science-society/index.cfm?fuseaction=public.topic&id=1301&lang=1 
http://ec.europa.eu/governance/impact/planned_ia/roadmaps_2011_en.htm#INFSO 
http://ec.europa.eu/information_society/activities/digital_libraries/scientific/public_hearings/index_en.htm 
The final analysis is available at: http://ec.europa.eu/research/science-society/document_library/pdf_06/survey-on-scientific-
information-digital-age_en.pdf 

EN 

9 

   EN 

 
                                                 
Other, 137

Researchers, 429

Individual citizens, 314

National, regional or local 
governments, 8

Publishers, 73

Libraries, 83

Universities/ research 
institutions, 96

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.  

26 

Preliminary report available at http://ec.europa.eu/research/era/pdf/era-summary-report-2012_en.pdf 

EN 

10 

   EN 

 
                                                 
• 

• 

• 

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. 

EN 

11 

   EN 

 
• 

• 

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; 

EN 

12 

   EN 

 
– 

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 study27 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. 

Estimates33  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 market34. 

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 

27 

28 

29 

30 

31 

32 

33 

34 

http://ec.europa.eu/information_society/policy/psi/docs/pdfs/opendata2012/reports/Vickery.docx 
http://www.fi.dk/publikationer/2011/adgang-til-forskningsresultater-og-teknisk-information-i-danmark 
http://epp.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/statistics_explained/index.php/R_%26_D_expenditure 
http://epp.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/statistics_explained/index.php/R_%26_D_expenditure 
http://epp.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/statistics_explained/index.php/R_%26_D_expenditure 
Publicly  funded  research  refers  to  research  undertaken  by  the  government  itself,  or  through  grants  to  academic  and  other 
researchers outside the government. 
www.stm-assoc.org/2009_10_13_MWC_STM_Report.pdf 
This  figure  should,  however,  be  interpreted  with  caution  as  it  does  not  include  non-English  language  journals  in  the  social 
sciences, humanities and arts 

EN 

13 

   EN 

 
                                                 
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  EBITDA36  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 

35 

36 

37 

38 

39 

Source: The Economist "Academic Publishing: Of Goats And Headaches - One of the best media businesses is also one of the 
most resented", 26.05.2011 
Earnings Before Interest, Taxes, Depreciation and Amortization 
http://fds.oup.com/www.oup.com/pdf/OUP_Annual_Report_2010-11.pdf 
www.stm-assoc.org/2009_10_13_MWC_STM_Report.pdf 
www.peerproject.eu 

EN 

14 

   EN 

 
                                                 
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 above42 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  

40 

41 

42 

43 

44 

45 

http://www.peerproject.eu/fileadmin/media/reports/Final_revision_-_behavioural_baseline_report_-_20_01_10.pdf, p. 90. 

and final report: 
http://www.peerproject.eu/fileadmin/media/reports/PEER_D4_final_report_29SEPT11.pdf, p. 25.  
See  for  example  the  response  from  Blackwell  Publishing  Ltd.  to  the  House  of  Commons  Science  and  Technology  Committee 
Inquiry into Scientific Publications, p. 2, available at http://www.blackwellpublishing.com/docs/House_commons.doc 
See footnote 28. 
http://www.publishingresearch.net/documents/SMEAccessResearchReport.pdf; further, if only anecdotal, evidence is contained in 

the JISC study on 'Benefits to the Private Sector of Open Access to Higher Education and Scholarly Research', available at: 
http://open-access.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2011/10/OAIG_Benefits_OA_PrivateSector.pdf 
http://www.publishingresearch.net/documents/SMEAccessResearchReport.pdf 
http://www.arl.org/bm~doc/arlstat09.pdf 

EN 

15 

   EN 

 
                                                 
Figure 2: Scholarly (scientific) journals v total serials: % price increase 1990-200946  

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 Journals48 flagged up a list of universities that made significant 
institutional  subscription  cancellations  in  2009,  due  to  their  inability  to  cope  with  current 

46 

47 

48 

http://www.sennoma.net/main/archives/2009/04/scholarly_journals_vs_total_se.php 
See Annex I.  
http://allenpress.com/system/files/pdfs/library/ap_journal_pricing_study_2010.pdf 

EN 

16 

   EN 

 
 
                                                 
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 VAT50 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 

49 

50 

See  for  example  the  response  from  Blackwell  Publishing  Ltd.  to  the  House  of  Commons  Science  and  Technology  Committee 
Inquiry into Scientific Publications, p. 2, available at http://www.blackwellpublishing.com/docs/House_commons.doc 
COM(2011) 851final of 6.12.2011, p. 11. 

EN 

17 

   EN 

 
                                                 
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 factors52, 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 funders53, including 
the EU54, have applied such a distinction, whereas others set the default rule of a six month 
embargo period and allow for exceptions55.  

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  studies56  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 

51 

52 
53 

54 
55 
56 

57 

For more details on these models, please see the Annex 1.  
See p. 68 in Annex I 
E.g. Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft: 

http://www.dfg.de/download/programme/wissenschaftliche_literaturversorgung_informationssysteme/mittelverwendung/2_12/2_

12.pdf; proposed revised OA policy of the Research Councils UK: 
http://www.openscholarship.org/upload/docs/application/pdf/2012-03/rcuk_proposed_policy_on_access_to_research_outputs.pdf.  
In the FP7 OA pilot: http://ec.europa.eu/research/science-society/index.cfm?fuseaction=public.topic&id=1300&lang=1 
E.g. Austrian Science Fund: http://www.fwf.ac.at/en/public_relations/oai/index.html 
http://www.plosone.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pone.0011273 
ISI index refers to the Thompson Reuters indexed Journals which allows researchers to identify which articles have been cited 
most frequently, and who has cited them 

EN 

18 

   EN 

 
                                                 
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. 

58 

59 

60 

61 

62 

http://www.plosone.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pone.0020961 
http://www.plosone.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pone.0011273 
http://www.plosone.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pone.0011273 
In an informal exchange with the authors.  
12, 000 articles published in 2011 alone. 

EN 

19 

   EN 

 
 
                                                 
Figure 4: Growth of OA articles and journals63  

One  key  finding  of  the  SOAP  survey64  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) journals65 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.  

63 

64 

65 

66 

http://www.plosone.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pone.0011273 
http://project-soap.eu/ 
www.plos.org  
See 

'Mathematicians  Organize  Boycott  of  Publishers',  NYT  online  edition  of  13  February,  available  at 

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/02/14/science/researchers-boycott-elsevier-journal-publisher.html; 

this  boycott  action  was  a 

reaction to the introduction of the 'Research Works Act' into the US Congress in 2011, a bill that is considered to be sponsored by 
major commercial publishers; the developments in the US will be dealt with on page 36.  

EN 

20 

   EN 

 
 
                                                 
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 
argued67  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 

67 

68 

69 

EN 

'IPR  Policy 

Knowledge  Exchange  Report 
exchange.info/Default.aspx?ID=516 
http://ec.europa.eu/information_society/policy/psi/docs/pdfs/opendata2012/open_data_communication/en.pdf 
Final report of the High Level Expert Group on Scientific Data, October 2010. 

and  Scientific  Research", 

available 

at: 

http://www.knowledge-

21 

   EN 

 
                                                 
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-Insight70  (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 

70 

71 

72 

www.parse-insight.eu 
http://www.ariadne.ac.uk/issue60/beagrie-et-al/ 
Report 'To share or not to share: Publication and Quality Assurance of Research Data Outputs' commissioned by the UK Research 

Information  Network,  available  at:  http://eprints.ecs.soton.ac.uk/16742/1/Published_report_-_main_-_final.pdf;  see  also  the 

findings  of  the  report  'Insight  into  digital  preservation  of  research  output  in  Europe'  prepared  by  the  PARSE  Insight  project, 
available at: http://www.parse-insight.eu/downloads/PARSE-Insight_D3-6_InsightReport.pdf. 

EN 

22 

   EN 

 
                                                 
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.  

73 

74 

http://www.alliancepermanentaccess.org/index.php/current-projects/ode/ 
http://cordis.europa.eu/fp7/ict/e-infrastructure/docs/hlg-sdi-report.pdf 

EN 

23 

   EN 

 
                                                 
• 

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,  legal75  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 study76 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. 

75 

76 

Essentially the sui generis copyright protection offered by the Database Directive (Directive 96/9/EC) and data protection issues 
(Directives 95/46/EC and 2002/58/EC) 
http://www.parse-insight.eu/downloads/PARSE-Insight_D3-6_InsightReport.pdf 

EN 

24 

   EN 

 
                                                 
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 

77 

78 

79 

http://www.parse-insight.eu/downloads/PARSE-Insight_D3-6_InsightReport.pdf 
See section 2.2.1.  
See section 2.2.2.  

EN 

25 

   EN 

 
                                                 
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. 

80 

81 

82 

EN 

Open 

Swan, 

Access 

citation 

A. 
http://eprints.ecs.soton.ac.uk/18516/2/Citation_advantage_paper.pdf 
See discussion on page 13.  
See discussion on page 15.  

advantage. 

Studies 

and 

results 

to 

date, 

available 

at: 

26 

   EN 

 
                                                 
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 

EN 

27 

   EN 

 
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 access84. 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 

83 

84 

http://ec.europa.eu/research/science-society/document_library/pdf_06/open-access-report-2011_en.pdf 
http://www.bis.gov.uk/assets/biscore/innovation/docs/i/11-1387-innovation-and-research-strategy-for-growth.pdf 

EN 

28 

   EN 

 
                                                 
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 

85 

www.openaire.eu 

EN 

29 

   EN 

 
 
                                                 
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. 

EN 

30 

   EN 

 
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) 

(2) 

(3) 

(4) 

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

Research data is made openly accessible online, for free;  

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

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 

EN 

31 

   EN 

 
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 

86 

87 

See discussion on page 17.  
Communication by the Commission on the future of VAT, COM(2011) 851 final, p. 11.  

EN 

32 

   EN 

 
                                                 
Scientific publications are 
widely available 

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

– 

– 

– 

increase 
the  number  of 
publications  resulting  from 
public  funding  available  in 
open access 

increase the number of open 
access mandates and 

improve 
funding 
the 
conditions  for  Gold  open 
access 

Stimulate the implementation of open 
access policies for data that: 

Research data are openly 
accessible 

– 

– 

Sustain 
innovation for 
growth and 
job-creation 
through better 
dissemination 
of information 

the 

deposit 

require 
of 
research  data  resulting  from 
public  funding 
in  an  e-
infrastructure 

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

Scientific 
information 
(publications and data)  is 
future 
preserved 
generations 

for 

Access 
scientific 
to 
information  across  MS  is 
facilitated 

Support  the  set-up  and  the  maintenance 
of 
for 
digital 
preservation 

e-infrastructures 

Promote  effective  deposit  systems  for 
digitally-born scientific information 

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 

EN 

33 

   EN 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
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 

88 

COM(2011) 882 final of 12.12.2011 

EN 

34 

   EN 

 
                                                 
apply to research funded at EU-level. Following on from the Communication on the Flagship 
Initiative  Innovation  Union,  the  proposed  Horizon  2020  implementation  rules89  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.  

89 

90 

91 

Proposal  for  a  Regulation  of  the  European  Parliament  and  of  the  Council  laying  down  the  rules  for  the  participation  and 

dissemination in 'Horizon 2020 – the Framework Programme for Research and Innovation (2014-2020)', COM(2011) 810 final of 
30.11.2011.  
http://www.openaire.eu/en/component/attachments/download/3 
COM(2012) xxx (forthcoming) 

EN 

35 

   EN 

 
                                                 
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  

92 

93 

94 

95 

96 

97 

98 

http://roarmap.eprints.org/ 
http://arxiv.org/ 
These  are  the  'Fair  Copyright  in  Research  Works  Act'  of  2009  directed  at  prohibiting  any  interference  by  research  funding 

organisations with the transfer of copyright from the author to publishers and the 'Federal Research Public Access Act' introduced 
in 2006, in 2012 and again in 2012; this bill would generalise the mandating policy of the NIH to all federally-funded research.  
The act has sparked a boycott movement (see references on page 20) among scientist as it became apparent that the bill has been 

sponsored  by  major  commercial  publishers;  on  this  see  the  position  of  the  American  Association  of  Publishers: 
http://publishers.org/researchworksFAQ/ 
http://www.rsc.org/chemistryworld/News/2012/March/research-works-act-dead-open-access-NIH.asp 
As foreseen by sec. 103 of the America COMPETES Act that asks the OSTP to coordinate public access policies. The result of 
this work – which included a stakeholder consultation – is not yet finished and no report made public.  
STM study, http://ec.europa.eu/research/science-society/pdf/scientific-publication-study_en.pdf, p. 64; a noteworthy project is the 
Scientific Electronic Library Online (SciELO) in Brazil (www.scielo.org).  

EN 

36 

   EN 

 
                                                 
Figure 6: Proportion of Repositories by Continent - Worldwide99 

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) 

(2) 

(3) 

Provision of upstream policy advice and building partnerships; 

Strengthening capacities to adopt OA; 

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. 

99 

100 

101 

http://www.opendoar.org/onechart.php?cID=&ctID=&rtID=&clID=&lID=&potID=&rSoftWareName=&search=&gro 
upby=c.cContinent&orderby=Tally%20DESC&charttype=pie&width=600&height=300&caption=Proportion%20of%20Reposito
ries%20by%20Continent%20-%20Worldwide 
Revised strategy on UNESCO's contribution to the promotion of Open Access to scientific information and research of 20 

October 2011, available at: 
http://www.unesco.org/new/fileadmin/MULTIMEDIA/HQ/CI/CI/images/GOAP/OAF2011/213342e.pdf 
http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/9/61/38500813.pdf 

EN 

37 

   EN 

 
 
                                                 
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) 

(2) 

(3) 

(4) 

Discontinuing existing EU action  

No policy change (Baseline scenario) 

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

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. 

102 

Council conclusions of 22 November 2007 on scientific information in the digital age: access, dissemination and preservation, 

available at 
http://ec.europa.eu/information_society/activities/digital_libraries/doc/scientific_information/council_conclusions_nov2007.pdf 

EN 

38 

   EN 

 
 
                                                 
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  VAT104  announces  a  specific 
revision process on the structure of VAT rates with a proposal expected for the end of 2013.  

103 

104 

See  for  example  the  PLoS  peer  review  approach,  http://poynder.blogspot.com/2012/02/oa-interviews-michael-eisen-co-
founder.html. 
COM(2011) 851 final of 6.12.2011.  

EN 

39 

   EN 

 
                                                 
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  already105.  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.  

105 

106 

Please see the table in the annex that shows the existence of repositories in most MS 
The peer-review process, for example, could disappear with the functionalities of social networks and other user-feedback 

mechanisms; see the 'Use and Relevance of Web 2.0 Resources for Researchers' project (ongoing): 

http://www.merc.ac.uk/?q=RIN_Web2.0_Project; see also the 'Social Media in the Research Workflow' report by CIBER, 
available at: http://www.ucl.ac.uk/infostudies/research/ciber/social-media-report.pdf.  

EN 

40 

   EN 

 
                                                 
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.  

107 

108 

This will be done in relation to the outcome of process relating to the development of a set of indicators to measure the growth of 
open access from 2000 onwards within the ERA (a call for tender was launched recently); for further reference see page 63. 
See the report 'National Open Access and Preservation Policies', 2011, http://ec.europa.eu/research/science-

society/document_library/pdf_06/open-access-report-2011_en.pdf; a noteworthy example in terms of policy formulation is the 

Danish Open Access strategy, available at: 
http://www.bibliotekogmedier.dk/fileadmin/publikationer/publikationer_engelske/open_access_2010/pdf/Open_Acces_UK.pdf;  

EN 

41 

   EN 

 
 
                                                 
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.  

EN 

42 

   EN 

 
 
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 

EN 

43 

   EN 

 
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 
between  Member  States  and  their  scientific  communities,  given  their  different  speeds  and 
different  approaches  in  this  field.  Consequently,  the  conditions  fostering  wider  access  to 
scientific information Europe would diminish. 

5.2.2.  Economic impact 

In  this  scenario,  the  current  problems  in  the  circulation  of  scientific  knowledge  would 
continue  to  exist,  and  probably  be  exacerbated  by  the  effects  of  the  economic  crisis.  This 
would  hamper  the  innovation  capacity  of  European  industry  and  have  consequences  for  the 
development of the European scientific knowledge base.  

An additional risk of the baseline  scenario  is that of increased fragmentation of the internal 
market as researchers face increasingly divergent national regimes.  

The  consequence  in  terms  of  loss  of  consumer  welfare  and  the  economy-at-large  due  to 
missed  opportunities  arising  from  wider  access  to,  and  re-use  of,  publicly  funded  scientific 
research publications, can been estimated at up to €1.8 billion.109 

5.2.3. 

Impact on stakeholders: 

5.2.3.1.  Impact on researchers 

Given the ‘serials-crisis’ described in section 2, access to information across Europe would be 
likely  to  deteriorate  considerably.  The  ability  of  researchers  to  access  scientific  information 
would depend on the financial strength of their employer and Member State. 

5.2.3.2.  Impact on academic libraries 

Libraries would find themselves unable to cope with price rises to their journal subscriptions, 
leading  to  subscription  cancellations.  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. 

109 

See reference in footnote 113.  

EN 

44 

   EN 

 
                                                 
5.2.3.3.  Impact on scientific publishers 

Under this option traditional publishers would continue to pursue business as usual and would 
not need to adapt quickly to the current environment, and speed up the transition process. 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. 

5.2.4.  Financial impact 

The  financial  impact  of  the  baseline  scenario would  be  neutral  in  the  short  term,  but  in  the 
medium  term  it  would  lead  to  a  suboptimal  value  for  money  ratio  of  public  investment  in 
access to scientific information. 

5.2.5. 

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 societal challenges. 
This  will  have  negative  societal  and  environmental  consequences.  Wide  access  to  research 
data in relevant areas can also considerably contribute to better policy making.. 

5.3. 

Implementation of a policy framework by a Recommendation to Member States 

Improving  access  to  scientific  publications  has  been  the  focus  of  the  debate  on  improving 
access to scientific information. It also has triggered controversy. A considerable number of 
scientists feel uneasy about the contrast between flat or shrinking library budgets on the one 
hand, and the impressive profit margins of big players in the scientific publishing industry on 
the other. Publishers for their part feel that their business model is under pressure depending 
on the form of open access applied to publications. Access to research data and preservation 
of both publications of data on the other hand, are largely uncontroversial subjects.  

5.3.1. 

Implementation in relation to scientific publications 

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

The  proposed  policy  framework  would  lead  to  better  access  to  scientific  information 
regardless what model – Green or Gold OA – will be applied.  

A 2010 study110 showed that roughly 20% of peer-reviewed articles published in 2008 were 
openly  accessible  for  free.  Simulations  suggest  that,  with  the  implementation  of  Gold  OA, 
there would be a considerable uptake of OA publishing.111 This is particularly important for 
researchers affiliated to less well-endowed institutions.  

In  addition,  another  study  demonstrates  that  a  self-archiving  mandate  would  likely  increase 
the percentage of papers made OA.112 

Open access to research results could have a considerable economic impact.  

110 

111 

112 

http://www.plosone.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pone.0011273 
See figure 8 in annex I.  
See figure 6 in annex I with reference to the study.  

EN 

45 

   EN 

 
                                                 
Research113 has been undertaken to estimate the economic benefits derived from open access 
to  research  publications.  The  potential  economic  impacts  can  be  estimated  in  detail  using  a 
modified Solow-Swan model.114 Based on conservative assumptions made by the authors, the 
model  suggests  that,  assuming  a  20%  return  on  R&D,  a  5%  increase  in  accessibility  and 
efficiency  due  to  open  access  policies  would  result  in  annual  gains  of  EUR  4.8  billion  for 
Gross  Domestic  Expenditures  on  R&D,  and  EUR  1.8  billion  for  government  and  higher 
education  expenditures  on  R&D  for  the  EU27.115  This  suggests  that  permanent  increases  in 
accessibility  and  efficiency  due  to  open  access  publishing  can  be  converted  to  recurrent 
growth  rates.  The  author's  of  the  report  have  had  to  respond  to  criticisms  of  their  research 
methodology.116  

5.3.1.2.  Specific impacts on stakeholders 

The  policy  framework  sets  a  number  of  objectives,  but  allows  freedom  in  terms  of 
implementation  at  national  level.  Currently,  two  main  models  of  OA  provision  are  being 
implemented,117 and any future open access policy in MS is likely to consist of a combination 
of both of them. MS are particularly likely to mix elements of Green and Gold OA in order to 
respond to the specificities of different academic disciplines. The policy framework also aims 
to allow for the development of future alternative OA models.118 

The impacts of the combination of elements from the Green and the Gold OA models can be 
described along a continuum – with exclusively Green OA, and exclusively Gold OA at either 
end:  

113 

Houghton  and  Sheehan,  The  Economic  Impact  of  Enhanced  Access 

to  Research  Findings,  2006,  available  at: 

http://www.cfses.com/documents/wp23.pdf; see Houghton, Open Access – What are the economic benefits? A comparison of the 

United  Kingdom,  Netherlands  and  Denmark  2009,  available  at  http://www.knowledge-exchange.info/Default.aspx?ID=316; 

Houghton/Sheehan, Economic implications of Alternative Scholarly Publishing Models: Exploring the Costs and Benefits, 2009, 
available at: http://www.jisc.ac.uk/media/documents/publications/rpteconomicoapublishing.pdf.  
see  Houghton  and  Sheehan,  2009;  This  methodology  allows  estimating  the  increase  in  returns  to  R&D  due  to  increases  in 

accessibility and efficiency arising from open access policies. This model provides estimates on total annual gains resulting from 

one year's R&D expenditure. It gives separate estimates for the (overall) Gross Domestic Expenditure and for public expenditure 
(government and higher education expenditure) only. 
Please see the table in Annex 1 on p. 72 for details.  
For  a  structured  response  to  the  criticism  in  relation  to  Houghton/Sheehan,  Economic  implications  of  Alternative  Scholarly 

Publishing  Models,  see:  Houghton/Oppenheim,  Widening  Access  to  research  information:  A  response,  2010,  available  at: 
http://www.cfses.com/EI-ASPM/Comments-on-Hall%28Houghton&Oppenheim%29.pdf.  
See above on the green and gold models.  
One such additional option are the so-called national licensing schemes, which is some kind of 'big deal' negotiated at the national 
level by the government or a central research funding organisation.  

114 

115 

116 

117 

118 

EN 

46 

   EN 

 
                                                 
Expected implementation by Member States anywhere here: 

GREEN OA 
ONLY 

GOLD OA  
ONLY 

Ideally the policy framework examines the impacts on stakeholders carefully at each step of 
the implementation of the policy framework, mainly the publishers. 

Any analysis of the potential impacts of the implementation of a mixture of the two models 
needs to examine the impacts of the two extreme cases:  

– 

– 

Main implementation of the policy framework by applying Gold OA 

Main implementation of the policy framework by applying Green OA.  

Main implementation of the policy framework by applying Gold OA 

Gold OA is  the model  in  which  the  costs of publishing are covered by  authors (in practice, 
usually by the funding bodies supporting them) or other sources (e.g. sponsorship), rather than 
by subscription-paying readers. This type of publishing is also referred to as the 'author pays' 
model.  

International context 

In  this  sense,  one  could  argue  that  governmental  investment  in  OA  in  the  EU  would  be 
inefficient or wasteful, as it would produce unintended positive effects in third countries.  

In this respect, it must be underlined that the move towards open access is a global one. Other 
major economies such as the US, Brazil, Canada, Australia and China119 are also promoting 
open  access.  The  National  Institutes  of  Health  (NIH)  in  the  US  –  the  biggest  funder  of 
medical  research  worldwide  –  mandates  open  access  publishing.  A  study120  conducted  in 
order to estimate  the positive and negative economic impacts of the open access mandating 
policy of the NIH shows that almost two thirds of the estimated potential incremental benefits 
of  the  mandating  policy  accrues  in  the  US  itself,  with  just  a  third  spilling  over  to  other 
countries.  

It can thus be concluded that, while it should be expected that positive effects would be felt 
outside the EU, it would be EU states who would be the greatest beneficiaries of the proposed 
policy framework. The unintended positive effects elsewhere are worth accepting as a trade-
off.  

119 

120 

See on China: http://english.cas.cn/Ne/CASE/201011/t20101104_60928.shtml 
Houghton/ Sheehan, Economic and Social Returns on Investment in Open Archiving Publicly Funded Research Outputs, 2010, p. 
8; available at http://www.arl.org/sparc/bm~doc/vufrpaa.pdf 

EN 

47 

   EN 

 
 
 
 
                                                 
Other reports point to the adverse effects of not implementing open access policies in the EU. 
They suggest that Europe risks losing out, should its research publications not be made open 
access.  The  "Study  on  the  economic  and  technical  evolution  of  the  scientific  publication 
markets in Europe," carried out for the Commission in 2006 remarks that "[a]s an increasing 
volume  of  high-quality  research  output  from  outside  Europe  becomes  openly  accessible,  it 
raises the question of the visibility and accessibility, and of the subsequent potential impact, 
of European research, as most articles by European researchers are published in subscription-
based journals."121 This suggests that going OA is indispensible if Europe wants to maintain 
the high level academic and research prestige that it enjoys today. Without securing visibility 
for  its  publications  within  the  global  academic  community,  Europe  risks  falling  behind  in 
innovation, and reducing the competitiveness of its largely R&D-based economic activity. 

Impacts on governments and research funding organisations:  

Under  an  author-pays  system,  publication  costs  accrue  in  the  country  funding  the  research. 
Research-intensive countries might therefore be expected to face a disproportionate financial 
impact in comparison to less-research intensive countries, who would  be largely consuming 
the output of research.  

Available studies suggest, however, that moving to a full Gold OA approach would generate 
substantial savings for all MS, including research-intensive ones. The study 'Open Access – 
What are the economic benefits?'122 concluded that even a research-intensive country like the 
UK  could  be  expected  to  enjoy  annual  savings  of  around  € 480  million.  The  same  study 
estimated the expected savings for similarly research-intensive countries at € 133 million for 
the  Netherlands  and  around  € 80  million  for  Denmark.  Such  studies  have  been  highly 
influential in policy development in the UK.123  

Total  costs  for  covering  publication  costs  are  expected  to  remain  below  1%  of  total  R&D 
spending.  The  intended  tripling  of  the  number  of  articles  available  in  open  access  from  a 
current 20% to 60% of the total of those resulting from publicly funded research together with 
an  expected  increase  of  the  proportion  of  articles  available  in  Gold  OA  as  of  the  total  OA 
articles (from 40% to 50%) may raise the amount of articles available in Gold OA to 30% of 
total article output. In terms of the costs attached to it, this would result in a cost in the order 
of 0.2% of gross R&D spending for a research-intensive country like the UK.124 For the EU27 

121 

122 

123 

124 

At p. 66; study available at http://ec.europa.eu/research/science-society/pdf/scientific-publication-study_en.pdf 
Houghton, Open Access – What are the economic benefits? A comparison of the United Kingdom, Netherlands and Denmark, 
2009, available at: http://www.knowledge-exchange.info/Default.aspx?ID=316; 
See 
Innovation  and  Research  Strategy 
http://www.bis.gov.uk/assets/biscore/innovation/docs/i/11-1387-innovation-and-research-strategy-for-growth.pdf 
Based on the calculation by Robert Kiley from the UK Wellcome Trust in http://blogs.nature.com/news/2012/05/key-questions-

in  December  2011,  available  at: 

for  Growth,  published 

the  UK 

in-the-uks-shift-to-open-access-research.html:  120,000  articles  published  in  the  UK;  the  average  article  processing  costs  set  at 

€ 1,925; 

the  Gross  UK  R&D 

spending 

data 

taken 

from 

the  Office 

for  National 

Statistics 

(http://www.ons.gov.uk/ons/rel/rdit1/gross-domestic-expenditure-on-research-and-development/2010/stb-gerd-2010.html): 
31.8bn.  

€ 

EN 

48 

   EN 

 
                                                 
this  would  result  in  a  similar  number  even  when  compared  to  public  R&D  spending  only 
(0.31%).125 

Some uncertainty remains as regards how article processing charges, i.e. the costs paid for by 
research funders, would evolve, and how they could be kept under control. Research funders 
would need to set fixed-price caps for refundable publishing costs.  

There  is  also  a  risk  that  overall  public  spending  on  scientific  publications  may  rise  if 
publishers of 'hybrid' journals126 do not decrease journal subscription prices in proportion to 
revenue  increases  from  author-pays  fees.  Research  funding  organisations  need  to  ask 
publishers  to  establish  a  plan  to  make  reductions  (in  the  following  subscription  year)  to 
subscription prices, based on the number of open access articles in the journals they publish, 
as the Oxford University Press and the American Institute of Physics have done.127  

From a public policy point of view, there is an immaterial benefit resulting from the fact that 
the scientific publication system continues to operate on the basis of the traditional scientific 
journal, a tested dissemination channel.  

Academic institutions (including their libraries):  

A  move  towards  open  access  journals  as  the  basis  for  disseminating  research  outputs  is 
expected  to  bring  economic  benefits  for  academic  institutions.  The  most  research-intensive 
universities, however, may face additional costs under certain circumstances.  

The  2010  report  by  Alma  Swan,  'Modelling  Scholarly  Communication  Options:  Costs  and 
Benefits  For  Universities,'128  examines  potential  savings  in  relation  to  the  level  of  article 
processing  charges  (APC).  It  suggests  that  there  would  be  savings  for  all  universities  when 
the APC is GBP 700 per article, or lower. Assuming an APC of above GBP 700, but under 
GBP  1000,  there  would  be  benefits  for  all  but  the  most  research-intensive  universities. 
Savings  for  three  out  of  the  four  universities  examined  in  the  study,  range  from  GBP  0.17 
million  to  GBP  1.4  million  per  annum,  while  the  most  research-intensive  university  studied 
would face extra costs of around GBP 1.86 million per annum.  

This  suggests  that,  under  this  scenario,  research-intensive  academic  institutions  would  need 
additional institutional or research-specific funding. The determination of the UK government 
to push for open access despite these findings, as referred to above, should be noted.129  

Researchers:  

Researchers will benefit from wider access to scientific publications in two ways. Firstly, they 
will have better access to publications as readers.  

125 

126 

127 

128 

129 

On 

the 

basis 

of 

2008 

figures: 

469478 

articles 

published 

(source: 

http://ec.europa.eu/research/innovation-

union/pdf/competitiveness-report/2011/data-and-statistics/key_indicators_summary_table.xls)  at  an  average  article  processing 
costs set at € 1,925; total public EU R&D spending of € 87275m (source as above) 
Journals that have both subscription-based and Gold OA content.  
OUP 
on 
subscription 
depending 
http://www.openoasis.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=265&catid=79&Itemid=316 
http://ie-repository.jisc.ac.uk/442/2/Modelling_scholarly_communication_report_final1.pdf 
Please see reference in footnote 110. 

from  Gold  OA, 

reduced 

income 

uptake 

fees 

see: 

and 

the 

its 

EN 

49 

   EN 

 
                                                 
Secondly, open access increases the visibility of researchers as authors. OA publications are 
read  by  a  wider  audience  than  publications  in  traditional  subscription-based  journals.  This 
increased  visibility  can  be  measured  by  the  citation  impacts  of  papers  published  in  OA. 
Statistics  suggest  that  the  citation  impact  doubles,  when  compared  to  a  comparable  paper 
published in a subscription based journal alone.130 

The  Gold  OA  model  presents  little  burden  and  low  risk.  Existing  journals  would  keep  their 
reputations and continue to serve as a means of dissemination, without any major structural 
changes. 

The  policy  framework  recommends  the  adaptation  of  career  reward  mechanisms,  and  the 
research grant system, in a way that supports and rewards researchers for OA publishing.  

Publishers:  

Scientific  publishers  appear  to  be  relatively  comfortable  with  a  move  towards  'Gold'  Open 
Access for publications, as it would only require a change in funding patterns and is seen as a 
sustainable business model.131  

They have concerns about how to avoid additional burdens in revenue collection. Publishers 
may not wish to interact with each author individually, preferring to deal with a small number 
of  interlocutors.  This  concern  can  be  addressed  either  by  centralising  the  reimbursement  of 
author publication fees in research funding organisations, or by using micropayment services 
like PayPal or Klarna.  

Business/ SMEs:  

Businesses would have better access to scientific publications. The benefits of this have been 
described in a Danish study, which suggested the lack of sufficient access to research results 
in an average loss of 2.2 years in innovation progress for SMEs.132 Conversely, better access 
would lead to a corresponding gain in innovation capacity. 

Policy-makers:  

Policy-makers  would  benefit  from  improved  access  to  scientific  research  publications  to 
support evidence-based policy-making.  

Individual citizens:  

Citizens  would  have  better  access  to  scientific  publications.  With  e-journals  now  being  the 
rule, they could access content directly from their homes.  

130 

131 

132 

See table 6 in annex I.  
www.stm-assoc.org/2011_05_30_STM_Mabe_Statement_Public_Hearing_Luxembourg.pdf;  see  the  examples  given  in  the 
Annex.  
http://www.fi.dk/publikationer/2011/adgang-til-forskningsresultater-og-teknisk-information-i-danmark 

EN 

50 

   EN 

 
                                                 
Main implementation of the policy framework by applying Green OA  

Green  OA  refers  to  the  practice  of  self-archiving,  i.e.  the  practice  of  authors  or  their 
institutions of depositing peer-reviewed articles in either institutional or subject-based online 
repositories.  Peer-reviewed  manuscripts  can  take  the  form  of  either  a  final  published  article 
(the  publisher's  final  version  of  record,  including  all  modifications  from  the  peer  review 
process, copyediting and stylistic edits, and formatting changes – usually a PDF document) or 
a final peer-reviewed article (including all modifications from the peer review process but not 
yet  formatted  by  the  publisher  and  thus  without  citable  page  numbers  –  also  referred  to  as 
post-print version). 

Governments and research funding organisations:  

Governments and research funding organisations are expected to save money with a move to 
Green  OA.  The  Houghton  report,  cited  above,133  estimates  potential  savings  of  EUR  30 
million  p.a.  for  Denmark,  EUR  50  million  in  the  Netherlands,  and  EUR  125  million  in  the 
UK. The difference in savings compared to the Gold OA model can be explained by the fact 
that there are no subscription-costs, and there are additional savings in library handling costs. 
Articles would continue to be published first in subscription-based journals with citable page 
numbers, and to go through the associated peer-review process. 

Academic institutions (including their libraries): 

Academic  institutions  are  expected  to  make  savings  under  the  Green  OA  model.  The  study 
mentioned  above134  highlights  that  savings  resulting  from  increased  efficiencies  in  the 
research  and  library  handling  processes  would  range  from  GBP  0.1  million  to  GBP  1.32 
million per annum. 

Academic institutions are expected to benefit in terms of increased visibility and presence on 
the Internet for their research,135 and the resulting increased research impact factor. 

Researchers:  

Researchers will benefit from wider access to scientific publications in two ways. Firstly, they 
will have better access to publications as readers.  

Secondly, open access increases the visibility of researchers as authors. 

Concerns136  about  the  lack  of  prestige  for  publications  in  a  repository  are  unfounded.  Self-
archiving is just one additional channel of dissemination after the article has been published in 
a  traditional  journal.  Articles  are  only  made  available  online  after  the  applicable  embargo 

133 

134 

135 

136 

Houghton, Open Access –  What are the economic benefits? A comparison of the United Kingdom,  Netherlands and Denmark, 
2009, available at: http://www.knowledge-exchange.info/Default.aspx?ID=316, at page III.  
A.  Swan,  'Modelling  Scholarly  Communication  Options:  Costs  and  Benefits  For  Universities',  available  at:  http://ie-
repository.jisc.ac.uk/442/2/Modelling_scholarly_communication_report_final1.pdf 
http://www.openoasis.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=142&Itemid=264 
Please see the discussion on page 20 

EN 

51 

   EN 

 
                                                 
period  has  expired.  This  means  that  the  prestige  attached  to  publishing  in  high-reputation 
journals will remain.137  

The  policy  framework  recommends  the  adaptation  of  career  reward  mechanisms  and  of  the 
system  of  attribution  of  research  grants  in  a  way  to  support  and  reward  publishing  OA  by 
researchers.  

Publishers: 

Publishers are concerned that the widespread implementation of mandates requiring delayed 
open  access  to  final  published  versions  of  articles,  with  short  embargo  periods  and/or  not 
accompanied by sponsorship, could lead libraries to cancel subscriptions. They argue that this 
would  undermine  subscription-based  peer  review  journals,  and,  ultimately,  their  business 
model. This concerns both traditional for-profit publishers and learned societies that publish 
subscription-based journals. Learned  societies are as such not-for-profit organisations.  Their 
publication  activities  are  profit-oriented,  however,  in  order  to  raise  revenue  for  cross-
subsidising other activities of the society. Open Access publishers are not concerned by Green 
OA. They only publish under the Gold OA model.  

The impact of Green Open Access on journal subscriptions depends on two factors:  

• 

• 

• 

The  length  of  the  embargo  period:  the  factor  which  give  the  publisher  time  in 
which to recoup their investment. 

The  difference  between  the  version  of  the  article  in  the  repository  and  the  final 
published version of the article.  

The trade-offs in the implementation of Green OA in terms of both the length of the 
embargo, and the version that will be archived in the repository, are summarised in 
this graph:  

137 

Other disciplines that rely predominantly on self-archiving in repositories like ArXiv apparently do not have a concern about the 
lack of reputation attached to self-archiving.  

EN 

52 

   EN 

 
                                                 
Trade-offs:  
Length of embargo periods/ 
Quality of the version in 
repository 

The longer the embargo period/ 
the greater the difference 
between the version in the 
repository compared to the final 
published article  
– the lower is the 
positive 
impact in 
terms of quick 
access on  

negative 
impact in 
terms of 
potential loss 
of revenue on  
Publishers 

Researchers 
Business/SME 
Citizens 

The shorter the embargo period/ 
the closer the version of the 
article is to the final published 
article  
– the higher is the 
positive 
impact in 
terms of quick 
access on  

negative 
impact in 
terms of 
potential loss 
of revenue on  
Publishers 

Researchers 
Business/SME 
Citizens 

A  survey  of  librarians  has  suggested  that  libraries  may  cancel  subscriptions  if  embargo 
periods  are  too  short.138  This  issue  is  currently  being  addressed  by  the  EC-funded  PEER 
project. The publishing industry is conducting research of its own on the impact of Green OA 
on  journal  subscriptions.139  Industry  representatives  have  also  reported  that  there  are  a 
considerable number of smaller scientific publishers and learned societies operating at single-
digit  profit  margins  that  would  be  hit  by  even small  losses  in  terms  of  revenue  from  Green 
OA.140  

However, there is currently not yet enough solid evidence on a correlation between delayed 
Open Access and subscription cancellations:  

• 

138 

139 

140 

141 

Publishers appear to have adjusted to the twelve-month embargo period required by 
the  US  National  Institutes  of  Health  (NIH)  without  a  significant  loss  of 
subscriptions141. 

http://www.publishingresearch.net/documents/Self-archiving_summary2.pdf 
Elsevier in a meeting with the authors reported that it conducts ongoing Green OA publishing experiments in the Netherlands and 
in Brazil in the area of biomedical journals in order to see impacts on journal subscriptions. No conclusions could be drawn yet. 
M. Mabe and B. Kalumenos of the International Association of Scientific, Technical and Medical Publishers speaking with the 
authors.  
http://listserv.crl.edu/wa.exe?A2=ind1201&L=LIBLICENSE-L&F=&S=&P=64840 

EN 

53 

   EN 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
• 

• 

Publishers appear to have likewise adjusted to the six-month embargo period in place 
under  the  OA  pilot  in  the  EU's  FP7  for  all  sciences  except  for  social  sciences  and 
humanities where the embargo period is twelve months.  

In  spite  of  the  uptake  of  Open  Access  publishing,  including  more  than  200  Open 
Access  mandates  worldwide,  the  profit  and  margins  of  scientific  publishers  have 
remained healthy over recent years.142 

There is a concern that the proposed policy framework creates adverse effects also outside the 
EU on publishers established in third countries. This is inevitable given the global nature of 
the  publishing  industry  that  does  to  a  large  extent  attract  an  international  authorship  and  is 
therefore  indeed  subject  to  different  conditions  imposed  by  research  funders.  The  concern 
disregards  however  that  there  is  an  international  trend  towards  Open  Access  policies143  and 
consequently a move also on the side of publishers to accommodate these policies by offering 
OA publishing options or by consenting to self-archiving.  

Business/ SMEs:  

Business would be better off with increased access to scientific publications, in particular, if 
the articles were available in easily searchable online repositories.  

The  benefits  have  been  described  in  a  Danish  study,  which  suggested  the  lack  of  sufficient 
access to research results in an average loss of 2.2 years in innovation progress for SMEs.144 
Conversely, better access would lead to a corresponding gain in innovation capacity. 

Individual citizens:  

Citizens  would  have  better  access  to  scientific  publications.  Repositories  could  be  easily 
searched online.  

Comparison / trade-offs between Green and Gold OA 

Benefits/ costs analysis 

A  study  undertaken  for  the  UK  assesses  the  cost  and  benefits  of  open  access  to  research 
publications.145 It concludes that both the Green and Gold open access avenues have positive 
benefit/cost ratios. In the case of Green OA the benefit/ cost ratio ranged from 4.7 to 8.6, for 
the Gold OA model it ranges from 1.7 to 15.7.146 The large divergence in the numbers relating 
to the Gold OA can be explained by two different article processing charges assumed for the 
analysis. The report actually distinguishes two 'Gold' scenarios.147  

142 

143 

144 

145 

146 

147 

http://pages.cmns.sfu.ca/heather-morrison/chapter-two-scholarly-communication-in-crisis/ 
See analysis on page 36.  
http://www.fi.dk/publikationer/2011/adgang-til-forskningsresultater-og-teknisk-information-i-danmark 
Heading  for 

the  open  road:  costs  and  benefits  of 

transitions 

in  scholarly  communications,  2011,  available  at: 

http://www.rin.ac.uk/our-work/communicating-and-disseminating-research/heading-open-road-costs-and-benefits-transitions; 
please see the Annex I for details.  
The numbers are to be read as meaning that the benefits outweigh the costs by the factor mentioned.  
Please see annex I for details. 

EN 

54 

   EN 

 
                                                 
The study indicates that the best policy option to pursue options is likely to be a mixture of 
Green and Gold OA.  

Since the infrastructure of repositories is  already  well developed  in the country studied (the 
UK), Green OA would offer a cost-effective means of increasing access. This would hold true 
also for a large number of MS,148 and all MS are expected to set up such repositories in any 
event  for  preservation  purposes.  However,  it  comes  with  risks  to  the  current  scholarly 
dissemination system, and may not be self-sustainable. Gold OA, on the other hand, involves 
higher costs, but has the advantage of its underlying sustainability. The study suggests that the 
best policy option to pursue is likely to be a mixture of Green and Gold OA. It recommends 
encouraging "the use of the existing green infrastructure (whose costs are largely sunk)" since 
it  appears  capable  of  providing  increases  in  access  comparable  to  or  greater  than  other 
scenarios, one main reason being that the infrastructure for self-archiving is built. It continues 
to recommend to be "cautious about pushing for reductions in embargo periods to the point 
where the sustainability of the underlying publishing model is put at risk"; in parallel, to work 
to facilitate a transition to 'gold OA' (in specific disciplines first) provided that (i) the average 
level  of  APCs  remain  at  or  below  GBP1,995;  (ii)  the  proportion  of  articles  funded  through 
APCs moves broadly in line with global rates".149  

Risks attached to the scenarios  

In terms of the risks attached to the two scenarios, the  study distinguishes between risks to 
the  scientific  dissemination  system,  mainly  the  impacts  on  the  subscription-based  journal 
business  model,  and  risks  attached  to  the  transition  from  the  status  quo  to  any  of  the  three 
open access scenarios: 

Scenario 

Risk  to  scientific  dissemination 
system 

Transition risk 

Green 

Higher risk.  

Medium risk.  

Greater potential for Green OA to 
undermine the business model on 
which it relies, if it leads to 
significant subscription 
cancellations. 

Although many150 academic 
institutions already have 
repositories, a significant shift in 
culture and practice is required 
amongst authors. Although this 
should be achievable, it requires 
significant impetus from funders and 
academic institutions. 

148 

149 

150 

Please see the table in Annex V.  
Idem at p. 13. 
See Annex V 

EN 

55 

   EN 

 
                                                 
Gold 

Lower risk.  

Medium risk.  

Gold is considered a low risk 
scenario, since it provides an 
alternative to the subscription-based 
publishing business model. 

There is a series of significant 
challenges in a transition to Gold 
OA. These include (for funders and 
academic research institutions) 
getting money in the right place; and 
(for publishers) adjusting their 
business models and cost structures. 
There are also risks associated with 
the distribution of costs in the 
transition, with a greater potential 
burden on research-intensive 
institutions. 

Table 2: Risks by OA scenario 

Source:  Heading  for  the  open  road:  costs  and  benefits  of  transitions  in  scholarly 
communications151  

5.3.2. 

Implementation in relation to open access to research data 

The survey done by the PARSE-Insight project152 shows that only 25% of researchers share 
their  research  data  openly,  only  11%  make  it  available  for  researchers  within  their  research 
discipline  and  58%  make  it  available  within  their  specific  research  group.  With  a  sustained 
effort on the part of Member States and research funding bodies, the number of researchers 
sharing their data openly could easily triple in a timeframe of 5 years, resulting in benefits for 
both science and the economy. 

Open access to research data has consequences essentially for three (groups of) stakeholders:  

Governments/ research funding organisations/ academic institutions 

Implementing open access to research data requires the governmental level/ public budget to 
fund up and providing sustainable funding for e-infrastructures. This will happen through the 
intervention  of  intermediaries,  such  as  e.g.  university  libraries  responsible  for  setting  up  e-
infrastructures  at  their  level,  or  nation-wide  institutions,  depending  on  the  size  and  the 
structure of each MS. 

Scientific publishers 

Scientific publishers have declared themselves comfortable with open access to raw research 
data.153  In  fact,  publishers  currently  develop  ways  to  interlink  datasets  in  existing  data 
repositories with the electronic version of the published article.  

151 

152 

153 

See footnote 129, at page 42.  
http://www.parse-insight.eu/downloads/PARSE-Insight_D3-4_SurveyReport_final_hq.pdf 
See the 'Brussels declaration' of the Association of Scientific, Technical & Medical Publishers (stm), available at http://www.stm-
assoc.org/brussels-declaration/ 

EN 

56 

   EN 

 
                                                 
Researchers/ Business/ individual citizens 

These are the principal beneficiaries of open access to raw research data. While it might be 
assumed that researchers are the group likely to be able to make the best use of raw data, the 
hidden  potential  of  businesses  and  individual  citizens  in  this  area  should  not  be 
underestimated.  

Researchers would be able to test hypotheses on other existing data sets, without the need to 
collect the same, or similar, data themselves.  

Researchers  depositing  'their'  data  may  feel  that  they  are  being  forced  to  'give  away'  data 
without having extracted all of its publication value. However, they need to understand that 
they  received  public  money  to  perform  research  in  terms  of  one  or  several  specific 
hypotheses. They cannot, therefore, claim eternal ownership of the data beyond the execution 
of the research they received the grant for.  

In view of the fact that voluntary compliance by researchers is an issue, the policy framework 
provides  them  with  career  incentives  and  asks  research  funding  organisations  to  take  past 
compliance with data deposit requirements into account when awarding new research grants.  

5.3.3. 

Implementation in relation to preservation 

The impact in relation to preservation produce essentially at two ends:  

The  governmental  level/  public  budget  has  to  fund  any  preservation  effort,  including  the 
formulation of policy, setting up and providing sustainable funding for e-infrastructures and 
ensuring the long-term curation of the content. This will happen through the intervention of 
intermediaries, such as e.g. university libraries responsible for setting up e-infrastructures at 
their level, or nation-wide institutions, depending on the size and the structure of each MS.  

The  cost  factor  is  not  only  relevant  for  access  to  scientific  information,  but  also  for  its 
preservation. Preservation activities are costly, but the investment pays for itself over time. A 
cost/benefit  analysis  of  the  preservation  of  research  data,  undertaken  by  the  UK  research 
funding organisation JISC, found that preservation efforts lead to a fourfold return in terms 
of cost saving alone.154 

At the user end, that is, for researcher's, business and individual citizens, preservation is cost 
free, and would only have positive effects. 

5.3.4.  Effects of scale 

The policy framework asks governments/ academic institutions to set up e-infrastructures to 
provide access to, and preservation of, scientific content. It should be emphasized that such e-
infrastructures  would  cover  all  three  of  the  aspects  described  above:  They  would  include 
publications and data, as well as playing a preservation role.  

The  three  aspects  are  described  here  separately  is  for  reasons  of  clarity.  Separate 
infrastructures would not need to be set up.  

154 

http://ie-repository.jisc.ac.uk/279/2/JISC_data_sharing_finalreport.pdf 

EN 

57 

   EN 

 
                                                 
5.3.5.  Conclusion 

The  proposed  policy  framework  is  expected  to  enhance  access  to  scientific  information  – 
regardless of the implementing option pursued by MS. Implementing open access to scientific 
publications  does  not  only  have  overall  benefits  in  the  order  of  € 1.8bn  as  a  return  on 
investment  in  terms  of  R  &  D  spending,  but  will  also  save  money  to  governments  and 
research  funding  organisations,  while  maintaining  a  sustainable  system  of  dissemination  of 
scientific publications for the medium and long term. Those savings depend on the concrete 
mechanism  of  ensuring  open  access.  Likewise  the  precise  impacts  and  risks  attached  to 
opening up access to publications depend on way in which OA is assured. Impacts attached to 
the Green OA model are subject to trade-offs.  

Given the non-enforceable nature of a Recommendation it can expected that some objectives 
will be only partially achieved. 

5.4. 

Approximation of MS legislation  

Under  this  option  the  policy  framework  described  under  option  3  would  be  implemented 
through  an approximation of MS legislation. The potential  impacts are therefore largely the 
same as those described under point 5.3. Under this option, a certain coherence of policies and 
practices  across  the  EU  in  terms  of  access  to,  and  preservation  of,  scientific  information, 
would  be  achieved  through  hard  legislation.  Some  Member  States155  already  have,  for 
example, legislative provisions mandating open access to research results. A Directive would 
unify these provisions and introduce them where they do not exist so far. The binding force of 
the  measure  would  make  it  more  efficient.  However,  considerations  of  subsidiarity  and 
proportionality may mean that only a very shallow level of harmonisation can be achieved.  

This  option  has  the  disadvantage  that  legislative  provisions  are  more  rigid,  and  harder  to 
repeal,  –  in  particular  when  based  on  a  Directive  -  should  the  policy  produce  unwanted 
effects.  

The  legislative  process  takes  time,  both  at  European  and  national  level.  Based  on  current 
experience, a minimum of 3 years has to be counted from the presentation of the legislative 
draft  to  the  end  of  the  implementation  period  in  Member  States.  During  this  process, 
stakeholders may adopt a wait-and-see mentality and stop moving forward with their current 
OA and preservation efforts.  

5.5. 

Comparison of the policy options 

The  table  below  provides  a  summary  of  main  likely  impacts  and  risks  (with  respect  to  the 
different  economic  and  social  dimensions)  arising  from  the  policy  options  described.  The 
signs  represent  a  scale  of  possible  impacts  vis-à-vis  the  "no  change  scenario":  +  positive 
impact, O neutral impact, − negative impact (using option 2 as a baseline).  

155 

Spain, Lithuania 

EN 

58 

   EN 

 
                                                 
IMPACTS 
RISKS 

AND 

Option 1 

Discontinuing  existing  EU 
action 

Option 
2 

No 
policy 
change 

Option 3 

Option 4 

Policy framework implemented through 
a Communication and Recommendation 
to Member States 

Approximation of MS laws 

SPECIFIC ACCESS, RE-USE AND PRESERVATION ISSUES 

Access to and re-use 
of scientific 
information  

− 

O 

+ + 

+ + 

Unfavourable conditions due to 
discontinuation  of  existing  EU 
action 

No 
change 

favourable  conditions 

for 
Increase  of 
access  and  re-use  through  alignment  of 
MS policies with clear targets  

favourable  conditions 

for 
Increase  of 
access  and  re-use  through  alignment  of 
MS policies with clear targets  

Preservation of 
scientific content 

−  

O 

+ + 

+ + 

Unfavourable conditions due to 
discontinuation  of  existing  EU 
action 

No 
change 

Increase  of  favourable  conditions  through 
alignment of MS policies 

Increase  of  favourable  conditions  through 
alignment of MS policies  

Transparency 

− 

O 

+ 

+ 

Unfavourable conditions due to 
discontinuation  of  existing  EU 
action 

No 
change 

Improved  transparency  (e.g.  outputs  of 
publicly funded research) 

Improved  transparency  (e.g.  outputs  of 
publicly funded research) 

Costs and benefits 
for re-
searchers/citizens 

− 

Direct 
costs 

O 

++ 

++ 

/indirect 

increase  of 

No 
change 

Trigger  wider  accessibility  and  availability 
of scientific content at lower costs; gain to 
consumer  welfare  and  economy  at  large 
from  wider  access  and  re-use  of  scientific 
content 

Trigger  wider  accessibility  and  availability 
of scientific content at lower costs; gain to 
consumer  welfare  and  economy  at  large 
from  wider  access  and  re-use  of  scientific 
content 

EN 

59 

EN 

 
  
 
 
 
Administrative 
burden  on  public 
bodies 

+ − 

O 

+ − 

− −  

of 

Removal 
administrative 
burden  of  compliance  with 
current EU practices 

No 
change 

flexible 

burden, 

Limited 
approach, 
implementation  of  the  policy  framework  at 
the  stakeholder  level;  increase  in  order  to 
improve/put in place a framework 

Increased  burden  in  order  to  implement  a 
new  EU  regulatory  framework  through 
legislative measures 

Legal certainty 

− 

O 

+ 

+ + 

Legal 
about 
uncertainty 
practices at national level (e.g. 
embargo 
periods, 
preservation)  

Legal certainty improved by the 
introduction of EU 
guidance/recommendations  

High  degree  of  legal  certainty  ensured  by 
approximation of MS legislation 

Speed 
implementation  

of 

− −  

No 
change 

+ + 

− −  

to  and 

Increase  of  legal  uncertainty 
re-use 
for  access 
possibilities  and  conditions  for 
the  availability  of  scientific 
information 

Policy framework is ready for 
implementation as of adoption; 
implementation in MS possible by 2014  

Postponement  of  positive  effects  of  the 
policy  framework  due  to  the  length  of  the 
legislative  process  and  the  transposition 
period 

ECONOMIC ISSUES 

Scientific  publishers 
and competition 

−  

O 

+ 

− −  

Legal 
and 
uncertainty 
regulatory  unpredictability  due 
to  MS's 
to  define 
flexibility 
rules governing access and re-
use; no impact on competition 

No 
change 

EU guidance/recommendations e.g. on OA 
and  licensing  conditions  would  provide 
incentives  for  new  entrants  to  consider 
market;
entering/developing 
 Stimulation 
among 
publishers (adaptation of business models, 
reduction of margin etc.)  

the 
competition 

of 

laws 

a  more 

risks 
to 
An  approximation  of 
represent 
regulatory 
framework  that  would  stifle  competition  in 
a dynamic and versatile industry already in 
a transition phase 

rigid 

Investment 

and  − 

O 

+ 

+ 

EN 

60 

EN 

 
  
 
Innovation 

uncertainty 

and 
Legal 
regulatory 
unpredictability; 
negative  impact  on  incentives 
for innovation and investment  

No 
change 

Soft law measures stimulate the promotion 
of innovation and attract investment  

A legal framework sets an environment for 
innovation and investment 

Internal Market 

− −  

O 

+ 

+ 

Increased 
due 
internal  market 
divergent national regimen 

fragmentation  of 
to 

No 
change 

Soft  law  measures  stimulate  a  natural 
convergence on the internal market  

A  legal  framework  imposes  on  the  market 
a  greater  harmonisation  of  rules  and 
approaches  between  MS;  resistance  can 
be opposed  

SOCIAL ISSUES 

Citizen 
empowerment/ 
public 
accountability 

− −  

O 

+ 

+ 

Increase  of  legal  uncertainty 
and regulatory unpredictability 

No 
change 

Openness and governmental transparency 

Openness and governmental transparency 

Employment 
labour market 

and 

O 

No change 

ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES 

O 

+ 

+ 

No 
change 

in 

Stimulation 
line  with  EU's  growth 
strategy  Europe  2020  yet  effects  not 
noticeable in the short term 

in 

Stimulation 
line  with  EU's  growth 
strategy  Europe  2020  yet  effects  not 
noticeable in the short term 

−  

O 

+ 

+ 

Environmental 
Impacts 

access 

to 
Reduced 
environmental 
scientific 
information  leads  to  less  well 
informed policy decisions 

No 
change 

Improved 
scientific 
informed policy decisions 

access 
information 

to 

environmental 
to  better 

leads 

Improved 
scientific 
informed policy decisions 

access 
information 

to 

environmental 
to  better 

leads 

EN 

61 

EN 

 
  
 
 
 
5.6. 

Evaluation of the administrative burden 

The  preferred  policy  option  allows  Member  States  to  develop  open  access  policies  along 
different routes.  

The  burden  will  vary  depending  on  the  route  chosen  by  each  Member  State.  It  will  vary 
among  Member  States  and  by  research  activity,  according  to  how  research  funding  is 
organised  at  present.  The  question  of  whether  there  is  an  extra  administrative  burden  also 
depends on whether the proposed policy has already been implemented, as is the case in many 
Member States, and in many institutions.  

As  for  "green  OA",  the  US  experience  suggests  that  the  additional  administrative  burden 
would  be  reasonably  small.  The  Department  of  Health  and  Human  Services  reports  that 
“[a]nnual operating costs for [implementing the National Institute of Health - NIH - policy], 
including ingest of articles, refinement of the submission system and search tools, staffing of 
a  help  desk  and  a  central  coordinating  office  for  NIH,  are  approximately  $3.5–$4.0  million 
per year. This represents a small fraction [about one one-hundredth of 1%] of NIH’s budget 
authority of more than $30 billion per year.”156 Evidence from the NIH policy also suggests 
that  the  estimated  time  taken  for  researchers  to  deposit  their  manuscripts  in  institutional 
repositories is only ten minutes.157  

Introducing appropriate administrative structures for "gold OA" within research organisation 
often 
inevitable 
implementation/compliance costs.  

allocating  new 

staff,  which 

represent 

requires 

training 

and 

There  may  be  initial  implementation  problems  for  authors  and  funders  as  the  new  policy  is 
introduced.  European  research  institutes/universities  would  need  to  allocate  additional 
resources to ensure greater compliance. This may, however, be more of an issue of a shift in 
the work of research institutes/universities, and less a question of additional staff. 

5.7. 

Conclusion 

The  comparison  between  options  indicates  that  Option  3  (Implementation  of  a  policy 
framework  through  soft  law)  offers  the  best  balance  between  enabling  wider  and  quicker 
access to scientific information, and taking into account how science and scholarly publishing 
have  evolved  over  the  past  centuries.  To  mitigate  the  inherent  non-binding  character  of  a 
recommendation,  which  per  se  cannot  guarantee  that  action  will  be  taken  by  all  Member 
States,  a  recommendation  should  foresee  a  close  monitoring  role  for  the  Commission.  It 
would  not  favour  any  particular  open  access  model.  The  objective  would  be  to  define  and 
move towards convergence, while allowing a certain degree of flexibility for MS to take their 
national  specificities  into  account  within  a  European  framework,  as  well  as  for  all 
stakeholders  to  endorse  improvements.  In  this  context,  a  recommendation  would  be  both  a 
proportionate and effective instrument. 

156 

157 

http://www.hhs.gov/asl/testify/2010/07/t20100729c.html 
http://www.hhs.gov/asl/testify/2010/07/t20100729c.html 

EN 

62 

   EN 

 
                                                 
6. 

MONITORING AND EVALUATION 

A monitoring and evaluation system would be put in place to monitor the implementation of 
the Recommendation and assess the extent to which the objectives are met. 

6.1. 

Continuous monitoring 

The Commission would ensure the overall co-ordination of this action. 

The  core  indicators  of  progress  towards  meeting  the  identified  objectives  would  be 
undertaken  under  the  context  of  the  ERA  framework  with  periodic  reports  from  Member 
States  on  the  implementation  of  the  Recommendation.  This  would  not  require  many  more 
resources  than  those  used  presently  to  monitor  the  Council  Conclusions  on  scientific 
information in the digital age. 

The establishment of an expert group in the context of policy work leading towards the ERA 
is  also  envisaged.  It  would  meet  on  a  regular  basis  to  address  specific  issues  in  the  area  of 
access to, and preservation of, scientific information. 

In addition, the Commission has recently launched a call for tender for the development of a 
set  of  indicators  to  measure  the  growth  of  open  access  from  2000  onwards  within  the  ERA 
and beyond158. The following indicators, which may be refined depending on the outcome of 
the tender, give examples of how to allow to measure progress in access to and preservation 
of, scientific information in Europe: number and mandatory content of national OA policies; 
number  and  mandatory  content  of  research  institutions/universities  with  an  OA  mandate; 
number  of  repositories  developed  in  Europe;  nature  and  volume  of  content  in  repositories; 
length and nature of embargo periods; compliance rates of OA mandates by researchers; level 
of  access  (number  of  downloads  of  articles);  number  of  research  institutions/universities 
supporting OA journals (willingness to pay publication fees); number and mandatory content 
of research institutions/universities with OA policies to data (datasets policy or statement on 
access to and maintenance of research data); and number of research institutions/universities 
requiring  data  management  plans  (requirement  to  consider  data  creation,  management  or 
sharing in the grant application) etc. 

6.2. 

Evaluation 

Two  years  after  the  adoption  of  the  proposed  Recommendation,  an  evaluation  would  be 
carried out by a panel of experts reporting to the MS and the Commission in order to assess: 

• 

• 

• 

The uptake and implementation of specific recommendations; 

To  what  extent  the  Recommendation  has  contributed  towards  its  objective  of 
improving access to and preservation of scientific information; 

The need to review or adapt the framework in place. 

On that basis the Commission will analyse the need to take further action.  

158 

http://ted.europa.eu/udl?uri=TED:NOTICE:291163-2011:TEXT:EN:HTML&tabId=1#id11521708-II 

EN 

63 

   EN 

 
                                                 
Annex 1: Main aspects of the scientific information system 

(1) 

Why is dissemination of results important for research and innovation? 

In the information economy, knowledge is the primary raw material and source of value, and 
is  therefore  a  source  of  competitive  advantage.  For  this  reason,  it  is  politically  and 
economically crucial that there is wide and speedy access to scientific information.  

There  are  a  wide  range  of  benefits  to  be  gained  from  improving  access  to  scientific 
information  and  ensuring  its  sustainable  long-term  preservation.  These  include:  the 
acceleration  of  the  research  and  discovery  process,  and  its  quality  assessment,  leading  to 
increased  returns  on  R&D  investment;  the  avoidance  of  duplicative  research  efforts  and 
enhanced opportunities for multi-disciplinary research, as well as inter-institutional and inter-
sectorial  collaborations.  The  sharing  and  exchange  of  knowledge,  both  within  the  scientific 
community  and  from  research  to  industry,  enables  participation  by  all  parts  of  society.  It  is 
particularly  beneficial  to  small  and  medium-sized  enterprises  and  contributes  towards  the 
building of the Innovation Union. 

(2) 

How is scholarly publishing organised? 

For  historical  reasons,  there  is  a  reliance  on  scientific  journals  as  the  main  channel  for  the 
dissemination  of  scientific  knowledge.  Scientific  journals  perform  the  following  functions, 
which  remain  the  standard  in  today's  scientific  world:  registration,  certification  (ensuring 
quality  control  through  the  so-called  peer  review  procedure),  dissemination  and  navigation 
(providing  filters  and  signposts  to  relevant  work  amid  all  published  material).  Most 
researchers  seek  peer  recognition  of  the  results  of  their  research  through  publication  in  a 
renowned journal. In addition, publishing in a high-impact factor scientific journal, rather than 
any  other,  may  have  implications  for  the  career prospects  of  researchers  in  terms  of  tenure, 
research funding opportunities, and/or consultancy roles. The elements mentioned above are 
often referred to as the "publish or perish" paradigm. 

Researchers  participate  in  the  publication  process  at  various  levels:  Traditionally  they  have 
volunteered to peer-review articles written by fellow researchers on the basis that they will be 
reviewed  themselves.  More  recently  publishers  ask  researchers  to  submit  their  manuscripts 
already  edited  in  the  prescribed  format  of  the  journal  in  view  of  reducing  the  costs  of  the 
editing work at the publishers end. In general, researchers receive no royalties for publication 
of research articles in journals, but only for textbook contributions.  

Scientific journals are normally sold to libraries, which represent the large bulk of the revenue 
of the journals market, whilst individual subscriptions (both personal and membership-based) 
have been falling for many years. Traditionally, library sales took the form of subscriptions to 
individual journals. While this is still an important part (currently around half) of the market, 
journals  are  increasingly  sold  as  bundles  of  titles,  either  directly  to  libraries  or  to  library 
consortia. These are the so-called "bundle deals" ("big deals"), in which libraries subscribe to 
packages  of  electronic  journal  titles  from  publishers  at  lower  cost  than  the  combined 
subscription  price,  although  "big  deals"  may  include  journals  that  libraries  would  otherwise 
not  want  to  subscribe  to.  This  model  involves  institutional  and  other  subscribers  paying  for 
access  to  bundles  of  online  journals  through  consortia  or  site  licensing  arrangements. 
Consequently, libraries are reacting by forming consortia to strengthen their bargaining power 
vis-à-vis publishers and to share resources.  

EN 

64 

   EN 

 
National  licensing  schemes  are  one  form  of  "big  deal"  whereby  a  national  funding 
organisation negotiates one single-access license for its territory. Traditionally, such licensing 
schemes  have  been  drawn  up  in  cooperation  with  academic  institutions.  However,  such 
schemes may also cover other actors, such as businesses or even every citizen.  

In addition, journals also offer a pay-per-view option, whereby one can access a single article 
for EUR 25-50.  

(3) 

What is the Impact Factor and how is it connected to scholarly publishing? 

A researcher is usually ranked according to the number of published articles of which (s)he is 
the  author  or  a  co-author,  along  with  the  number  of  times  those  articles  have  been  cited  in 
other articles. The results are weighted according to the visibility of the journal in which the 
article  or  citation  appears  (the  "Impact  Factor").  This  mechanism  has  become  increasingly 
significant in recent years, as it is seen as a simple metric of output and efficiency by research 
funders. But it has been criticized too, for publishers themselves are usually providers of such 
services  and  as  more  comprehensive,  sophisticated  metrics  are  being  studied,  proposed  and 
developed.  The  pressure  to  publish  in  journals  has  expanded  into  disciplines  where  it  has 
historically not been prevalent, for example to the social sciences, humanities and arts where 
books and monographs are traditionally more important to researchers' reputations. 

(4) 

What is the economic dimension of scholarly publishing? 

Available estimates159 value 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.  This  figure  should,  however,  be  interpreted  with  caution  as  it  does  not 
include  non-English  language  journals  in  the  social  sciences,  humanities  and  arts.  The  total 
European  STM  publishing  market  has  an  estimated  share  of  30%  of  the  total  international 
STM publishing market, that is, EUR 4.8 billion in 2008. Using the average of the journals 
market estimates, this suggests a European STM scholarly journal market value of EUR 2.4 
billion in 2008.  

There are in the order of 2000 journal publishers, which can be divided into two groups: for-
profits  (FP)  and  not-for-profits  (NFP),  the  latter  including  learned  societies  and  university 
presses. FP publishers have been the main impetus behind the growth of publishing activity. 
The main English-language trade and professional associations for journal publishers include 
657 publishers which collectively produce around 11,550 journals, that is, about 50% of total 
journal output by title. Of these, 477 publishers (73%) and 2334 journals (20%) are not-for-
profit.  There  were  about  25,400  active  scholarly  peer-reviewed  journals  in  early  2009, 
collectively  publishing  about  1.5  million  articles  a  year.  The  number  of  articles  published 
each year and the number of journals grows by 3% and 3.5% per year, respectively. 

The  scientific  publishing  industry  is  characterised  by  a  set  of  4  large  publishers  with  a 
portfolio of up to 2000 journal titles. However, 95% of the some 2000 publishers worldwide 
publish  only  one  or  two  journals.160  In  general,  scientific  publishing  remains  a  solid  and 

159 

160 

www.stm-assoc.org/2009_10_13_MWC_STM_Report.pdf 
M. Ware/ M. Mabe, The stm report – an overview of scientific and scholarly journal publishing, September 2009, available at: 
www.stm-assoc.org/2009_10_13_MWC_STM_Report.pdf. 

EN 

65 

   EN 

 
                                                 
profitable  business,  despite  the  economic  crisis,  the  advent  of  the  Internet  and  the 
development of new business models and entrants to the market. This is particularly true for 
the  larger  publishers.  For  example,  Elsevier,  the  world's  largest  publisher  of  scientific 
journals, with almost 2000, 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%.161 Similarly, the results of Springer in 2010 were strong, with 
revenues  reaching  EUR  866  million  and  its  EBITDA162  reaching  EUR  294 million, 
representing  a 33.9 %  return on sales. Brill, a leading publisher in the Arts and Humanities 
field,  reported  an  operating-profit  margin  of  18%.163  The  Oxford  University  Press  also 
presented strong results in March 2011, lead by the solid sales growth of its academic arm.164  

Journal  prices vary widely depending  on whether the publisher is FP or NFP, as well as on 
citation  numbers  (see  Table  3).  As  a  general  rule,  journals  published  by  FP  publishers  cost 
more than journals published by NFP publishers (three times more, on average). 

Cost per page 

Cost per Cite 

For-profit 

Not For-profit 

For-profit 

Not For-profit 

1.01 

0.19 

0.73 

0.05 

0.83 

0.17 

2.33 

0.15 

0.95 

0.15 

0.88 

0.07 

0.70 

0.27 

1.32 

0.28 

0.89 

0.10 

0.23 

0.04 

0.63 

0.19 

0.38 

0.05 

Ecology 

Economics 

Atmosph. Sci 

Mathematics 

Neuroscience 

Physics 

Table  3:  Journal  prices  by  discipline  (Source:  "The  Costs  and  Benefits  of  Site  Licences  to 
Academic  Journals",  Proceedings  of  the  National  Academy  of  Sciences,  Jan.  04,  by  C.T. 
Bergstrom and T.C. Bergstrom) 

161 

162 

163 

164 

Source: The Economist "Academic Publishing: Of Goats And Headaches - One of the best media businesses is also one of the 
most resented", 26.05.2011 
Earnings Before Interest, Taxes, Depreciation and Amortization 
http://www.brill.nl/files/brill.nl/press_release_brill_annual_results_2011-final-eng.pdf 
http://fds.oup.com/www.oup.com/pdf/OUP_Annual_Report_2010-11.pdf 

EN 

66 

   EN 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
(5) 

What is open access (OA) and where does it come from? 

Open access, which refers to the practice of granting instant, free internet access to scientific 
research  (including  peer-reviewed  journal  articles),  has  two  main  driving  forces:  the 
opportunities brought to the scholarly dissemination system by the advent of the Internet, and 
the need to resolve the so-called 'serials crisis'. 

The  explosion  of  interest  and  activity  in  OA  journals  has  occurred  largely  due  to  the 
widespread availability of internet access. It became possible to publish a scholarly article and 
make  it  instantly  accessible  anywhere  in  the  world,  separating  the  fixed  cost  of  production 
from the minimal marginal cost of online distribution. These new possibilities emerged at a 
time  when  the  traditional,  print-based  scholarly  journals  system  was  in  crisis.  While  the 
supply  of  journals  seems  to  have  been  satisfactory  in  the  decades  before  the  electronic 
transition, the 1975-1995 period has been dubbed the 'serials crisis.' It saw a dramatic increase 
of over 300% above inflation in the price of journals sold by FP publishers, and this before 
the  big  technological  change  of  the  electronic  transition.  The  price  trend  was  similar  for 
learned  societies,  though  more  moderate  for  university  presses  (still  in  the  order  of  200% 
above inflation).165 This 'crisis' has been widely studied.166 The aim of the OA movement is to 
maximise  research  uptake,  usage  and  impact,  by  making  research  articles  accessible  to  all 
potential  users,  rather  than  just  those  whose  institutions  can  afford  the  subscription.  OA  to 
journal articles can be achieved in different ways, with two basic models: a) self-archiving (or 
Green OA) and b) OA publishing (or Gold OA).  

(6) 

What is Green OA and how is it organised? 

Green OA refers mainly to the practice of self-archiving, i.e. the practice of authors or their 
institutions of depositing peer-reviewed articles in either institutional or subject-based online 
repositories.  Peer-reviewed  manuscripts  can  take  the  form  of  either  a  final  published  article 
(the  publisher's  final  version  of  record,  including  all  modifications  from  the  peer  review 
process, copyediting and stylistic edits, and formatting changes – usually a PDF document) or 
a final peer-reviewed article (including all modifications from the peer review process but not 
yet  formatted  by  the  publisher  and  thus  without  citable  page  numbers  –  also  referred  to  as 
post-print version). In some cases, draft versions of the paper that have not yet undergone the 
peer-review process are (also referred to as the preprint version) deposited. This practice has 
the major disadvantage: Readers essentially seek to have access to the final published article 
as it is both peer-reviewed and has got citable page numbers.167 Many publishers maintain that 
public  research  funding  grants  do  not  cover  more  than  the  author's  manuscript  and  that  the 
value  they  add  to  the  subsequent  versions,  essentially  the  final  published  version,  are  not 
covered by this. This is why publishers have no difficulty with self-archiving of the author's 
pre-print manuscript.168  

165 

166 

167 

168 

http://ec.europa.eu/research/science-society/pdf/scientific-publication-study_en.pdf 
Cummings et al. (1992)  
See  PEER  Behavioural  Research:  Authors  and  Users  vis-à-vis  Journals  and  Repositories  –  Final  Report,  available  at: 

http://www.peerproject.eu/fileadmin/media/reports/PEER_D4_final_report_29SEPT11.pdf,  at  pages  16  et  seq.;  this  does  not 

exclude that researchers use a pre-version of the final article when writing a paper to see the papers relevance or use a pre-version 
while the final version is in the publication process.  
Some accept the publication of an accepted or peer-reviewed version on the author's webpage (not in a repository as this would 
make structured searches for the version easily possible) in order to attract readers to the final published version.  

EN 

67 

   EN 

 
                                                 
A  database  of  publisher  self-archiving  policies  is  maintained  by  the  SHERPA/RoMEO 
project.169 Of the 997 publishers included in the database:  

• 

• 

• 

57 % allow archiving of the author’s accepted (peer-reviewed) manuscripts; 

8 % allow archiving of the author’s original manuscripts (not peer-reviewed); 

35 % do not formally support archiving. 

Some  64%  of  publishers,  therefore,  permit  self-archiving  in  some  form.  Publishers  are, 
however, keen to impose embargo periods. The length of the embargo period is the critical 
time for the publisher to recoup the investment made into the publishing process in terms of 
organising  the  peer-review,  the  layout  and  editing  work  and  the  costs  attached  to 
dissemination  of  the  journals  (paper  print  and  distribution,  costs  attached  to  hosting  the  e-
versions of the journals, sales management). Publishers explain that the length of the embargo 
period  depends  on  a  multiplicity  of  factors,  among  them:  The  scientific  discipline,  the 
rejection rate of articles of the specific journal (i.e. the rate of the number of rejected articles 
compared to published articles; it is the major cost driver as it multiplies peer-review costs), 
frequency  of  the  editions,  possible  revenue  from  advertisement  (not  uncommon  in  high 
circulation journals such as Science or Nature) and its circulation rate.170 

A recent study concluded that 11.9 % of OA scientific articles were published under Green 
OA.171 

Research  funders  have  started  requesting  that  the  researchers  they  fund  or  co-fund  deposit 
copies  of  their  accepted  manuscripts  into  online  repositories.  However,  given  the  very  low 
compliance rate by researchers to these requests (e.g. NIH compliance rate below 5 % prior to 
2008),  many  have  changed  this  policy  and  now  formally  require,  or  mandate,  deposits  in 
designated  repositories,  with,  in  general,  a  six-twelve  month  embargo  period  before  the 
content is made freely available. The SHERPA Juliet website172 lists research funders' open 
access  policies,  including  all  the  UK  Research  Councils,  the  Wellcome  Trust,  the  Howard 
Hughes  Medical  Institute,  the  European  Research  Council  and  the  DFG.  Many  other 
institutions  have  similar  mandates.  At  present,  the  number  of  OA  mandates  worldwide  is 
222.173  

169 

170 

171 

172 

173 

http://www.sherpa.ac.uk/romeo/statistics.php?la=en&fIDnum=|&mode=simple;  it  is  important  to  highlight  that  the  database 

records  the  publisher's  default  policy  and  does  not  take  into  account  specific  arrangements  by  the  publisher  for  individual 
journals.  
Orally to the authors at a visit to Elsevier publishing.  
http://www.plosone.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pone.0011273 
http://www.sherpa.ac.uk/juliet/ 
http://roarmap.eprints.org/ 

EN 

68 

   EN 

 
                                                 
Figure 7: Effects of Green OA funder mandates on open access to publications 

Open  Access  (OA)  self-archiving  percentages  for  institutions  with  self-archiving  mandates 
compared to non-mandated;  

Source:  S.  Harnad,  What  Is  To  Be  Done.  About  Public  Access  to  Peer-Reviewed  Scholarly 
Publications Resulting From Federally Funded Research?174 

Some  journal  publishers  have  sought  to  negotiate  individually  with  universities,  research 
institutes  or  funders  in  response  to  their  mandates,  in  order  to  require  specific  agreements. 
These usually involve increasing embargo periods for authors depositing post-prints of their 
articles into repositories, or even requesting embargo periods that go beyond what is already 
requiews  by  the  publishers'  own  policies.175  In  May  2011,  the  national  programme 
OpenAccess.se  recommended  that  Swedish  universities  with  open  access  mandates  refrain 
from making individual agreements with Elsevier.176 

The new mandatory policies implemented by institutions have had mixed results in terms of 
compliance  rates  by  authors/researchers.  Some  research  funders  (NIH,  Wellcome  Trust, 
Minho University) have reported increases of up to 65% in compliance rates (in the case of 
the  NIH)  by  their  researchers.  However,  other  sources  show  implementation  rates  by 
researchers  remaining  well  below  these  figures  (e.g.  15  %).  This  demonstrates  that,  while 
researchers  may  claim  to  be  willing  to  deposit  copies  of  their  papers  if  required,  they  are 
either uninterested or unaware of the potential benefits of implementing such a policy177.  

The  EU-funded  project  PEER178  recently  reported  on  the  perceptions,  motivations  and 
behaviours of authors and readers with regard to repositories. One of the key findings of the 
research was  that the number of researchers who reported placing a version of their journal 

174 

175 

176 

177 

178 

Available at: http://eprints.ecs.soton.ac.uk/23080/10/COMPETES3-harnad.pdf 
http://www.sparceurope.org/news/public-response-on-behalf-of-sparc-sparc-europe-and-coar-regarding-publishers-self-deposit-
policies 
http://www.kb.se/Docs/about/projects/openaccess/2011/StällningstagaElsevier%20ENG%20_fin__cs%20recs.pdf  
Kim J (2007). Motivating and Impeding Factors Affecting Faculty Contribution to In Repositories. J. Digital Inf., 8(2). 
http://www.peerproject.eu/ 

EN 

69 

   EN 

 
 
                                                 
article(s)  in  an  OA  repository  within  an  18  month  period  was  negligible.  The  research  also 
highlighted that, at present, the project respondents consider funder and institutional mandates 
to be relatively weak motivators for repository deposit, due to their weak enforcement. Early 
research,  however,  suggests  that  if  institutions  were  to  enforce  OA  mandates,  researchers 
would feel compelled to comply with them.179 

Recently, the League of European Research Universities (LERU) issued a "Roadmap towards 
open  access".180  This  initiative  is  likely  to  foster  the  co-operation  of  research  institutions  in 
developing more effective and user-friendly OA policies. The roadmap also acknowledges the 
fact that more than mere mandates will be necessary in order to boost compliance rates. 

A variant of self-archiving is the practice of delayed access. This describes an article which is 
made available for free on the publisher's website, after an embargo period set by, or agreed 
with,  the  publisher.  The  difference  from  self-archiving  is  that  the  article  is  not  put  into  a 
separate  institutional  or  subject-based  repository;  rather  it  is  sourced  from  the  publisher's 
database.  

(7) 

What is Gold OA and how is it organized? 

Gold OA is  the  model in which the costs of publishing are covered by authors  (in  practice, 
usually by the funding bodies supporting them) or other sources (e.g. sponsorship), rather than 
by subscription-paying readers. This type of publishing is also referred to as the 'author pays' 
model. Two types of journals exist: journals publishing only open access articles and hybrid 
journals offering both open access and subscription articles. No embargo periods are applied 
to open access articles. The hybrid model has been adopted by many for-profit publishers and 
large scholarly societies. Hybrid journals can be criticised for having the potential to increase 
revenues  for  the  publisher,  while  at  the  same  time  subjecting  libraries  to  continuing  price 
inflation.  

Article publishing fees for full and optional OA journals now mostly fall in the rather wide 
range  of  EUR  700-2100.  New  players  in  the  market  charge  fees  that  are  lower  than  the 
standard  industry  average  cost  per  article.  Others  such  as  BioMedCentral  and  PLoS  –  key 
leaders of this OA route – have had to adjust and raise their original fees to remain financially 
viable. PLoS raised its original fee of EUR 1000 to EUR 1500-2200 (depending on journal), 
while BMC has raised its fee from its original fees to between €1250-€1450 for the majority 
of its journals. 

Recent  studies  suggest  that,  measured  both  by  the  number  of  journals  as  well  as  by  the 
increases in total article output,  Gold OA  journal publishing has  grown rapidly,  particularly 
between the years 2000 and 2009. It is estimated that there were around 19,500 open access 
articles published in 2000, growing to 191,850 in 2009. The journal count for the year 2000 is 
estimated to have been 740, and 4,769 for 2009; numbers show considerable growth, although 
the  pace  is  slower  at  article-level.  These  findings  support  the  notion  that  OA  journals  have 
increased both in number and average annual output over time, as illustrated below.  

179 

180 

http://cogprints.org/4385/1/jisc2.pdf  
http://www.leru.org/files/publications/LERU_AP8_Open_Access.pdf 

EN 

70 

   EN 

 
                                                 
Figure 8: Growth of OA articles and journals181 

Some research institutions have established specific mechanisms within in their organisations 
to  support  reasonable  publication  charges  for  articles  written  by  their  research  staff  and 
published  in  Gold  OA  journals.  In  2010  the  Wellcome  Trust  funded  the  publication  of  440 
articles, costing the organisation EUR 700,000. This averages out at EUR 1,590 per paper.  

The Compact for Open-Access Publishing Equity (COPE)182 is a commitment undertaken by 
13 universities (including Harvard, Dartmouth and CERN) Signatory universities commit to 
the developing mechanisms for supporting reasonable publication charges for articles written 
by  its  faculty  and  published  in  OA  journals,  and  for  which  other  institutions  would  not  be 
expected to provide funds. 

181 

182 

http://www.plosone.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pone.0011273 
http://www.oacompact.org/compact 

EN 

71 

   EN 

 
 
                                                 
Figure 9: Expected uptake in Gold OA 
Source: Poynder, Open Access by numbers, p. 14183 

(8) 

What are the estimated benefits of OA? 

Research184 has been undertaken to assess the economic benefits derived from open access to 
research results. The potential economic impacts of wider access to research publications can 
be estimated in detail using a modified Solow-Swan model185. This methodology allows the 
estimation  of  increases  in  returns  to  R&D  due  to  increases  in  accessibility  and  efficiency 
arising from OA policies. This model provides estimates on total annual gains resulting from 
one  year's  R&D  expenditure.  It  gives  separate  estimates  for  the  (overall)  Gross  Domestic 
Expenditure and for public expenditure (government and higher education expenditure) alone. 
The model suggests that assuming a 20% return on R&D a 5% increase in accessibility and 
efficiency  due  to  open  access  policies  would  result  in  annual  gains  of  EUR  4.8  billion  for 
Gross  Domestic  Expenditures  on  R&D  and  EUR  1.8  billion  for  government  and  higher 
education  expenditures  on  R&D  for  the  EU27.  This  suggests  that  permanent  increases  in 
accessibility and efficiency due to OA publishing can be converted to recurrent growth rates. 

183 

184 

185 

Available at: http://www.richardpoynder.co.uk/Open_Access_By_Numbers.pdf. 
Houghton  and  Sheehan,  The  Economic  Impact  of  Enhanced  Access 

to  Research  Findings,  2006,  available  at: 

http://www.cfses.com/documents/wp23.pdf; see Houghton, Open Access – What are the economic benefits? A comparison of the 

United  Kingdom,  Netherlands  and  Denmark  2009,  available  at  http://www.knowledge-exchange.info/Default.aspx?ID=316; 

Houghton/Sheehan, Economic implications of Alternative Scholarly Publishing Models: Exploring the Costs and Benefits, 2009, 
available at http://www.jisc.ac.uk/media/documents/publications/rpteconomicoapublishing.pdf 
see Houghton and Sheehan, 2009 

EN 

72 

   EN 

 
 
                                                 
EU27 

GERD 

EUR 
million 

236,553 

Per  cent  change  in 
accessibility 
and 
efficiency 

Rate of return to R&D 

20% 

30%

40%

50% 

60%

Recurring annual gain from increased accessibility & efficiency (million) 

1% 

2% 

5% 

10% 

951 

1,911 

4,849 

9,935 

1,426

2,867

7,274

1,902

3,823

9,699

2,377 

4,778 

2,853

5,734

12,123 

14,548

14,903

19,870

24,838 

29,806

Table  4:  EU27  –  Increase  in  returns  to  R&D  due  to  increases  in  accessibility  and  efficiency 
arising from open access186 

In addition to the economic benefits accruing for society as a whole, disseminating research 
results through OA benefits individual researchers. There is an on-going debate about whether 
OA  increases  research  impact  over  and  above  the  impact  already  gained  through  the 
subscription-access  system,  by  increasing  the  visibility,  discovery  and  accessibility  of 
research articles. The possible components of the OA advantage can be identified as general 
(citable  articles  become  available  to  new  audiences  who  would  find  them  citable), earliness 
(the  earlier  an  article  is  put  before  a  potential  audience,  the  more  this  affects  subsequent 
citation  patterns),  selection  bias  (authors  make  their  best  articles  more  readily  available  OA 
on than their poorer articles), and quality advantage (better articles gain more from the general 
OA advantage because they are, by definition, more citable than poorer articles). 

Another  study  undertaken  by  Houghton  for  the  UK  shows  benefits/  costs  ratios  for  three 
different scenarios relating to wider access to research publications.187  

The scenarios analyzed were: 

– 

– 

186 

187 

Green Access – referring to self-archiving of accepted manuscripts into repositories 
driven by funder mandates; 

Gold Access – referring to publication of manuscripts in OA journals after payment 
of a publication fee (article processing charge);  
it is subdivided into two sub-scenarios assuming a high and a low article processing 
charge (APC): 

Source:  Houghton,  2011,  cited  in: Vickery,  Review  of  recent  studies  on  PSI  re-use  and  related  market  developments,  at  p.  37, 
available at: http://epsiplatform.eu/content/review-recent-psi-re-use-studies-published. 
Heading  for 
http://www.rin.ac.uk/our-work/communicating-and-disseminating-research/heading-open-road-costs-and-benefits-transitions.  

in  scholarly  communications,  2011,  available  at: 

the  open  road:  costs  and  benefits  of 

transitions 

EN 

73 

   EN 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
the high APC was set at ₤ 2,346 – corresponding to the "observed per-article 
publishing costs for author-side payment journals" (subtracting any assumed 
contribution from other funding sources, such as advertising) based on activity cost 
estimates sourced from publishers (adjusted to 2010 levels); 
the lower APC was set at ₤ 1,457 – corresponding to weighted average charges 
currently being paid to Gold publishers; 

Green 

Gold 

(higher 
APC) 

Gold 

(lower APC) 

Costs  

₤45.0m 

₤152.9m 

₤28.3m 

Savings  

- 

₤80.5m 

₤121.0m 

Total 
costs  

net 

Economic 
benefits 

Benefit 
cost ratio  

– 

₤45.0m 

₤72.4m 

-₤92.6m 

₤211.6m – 

₤184.1m – 

₤184.1m – 

₤385.8m 

₤325.1m 

₤325.1m 

4.7 – 8.6 

1.7 – 2.7 

10.8 – 15.7 

Table 5: Benefit/ cost ratios for selected OA models 

There  is  also  research  undertaken  in  relation  to  the  advantage  for  scientists  in  terms  of  an 
increased number of citations for OA articles: A meta-analysis undertaken by A. Swan188 in 
2010  concluded  that  27  out  of  31  research  papers  looking  into  this  matter  suggest  that  OA 
articles are more cited than non-OA articles.  

Size of OA citation advantage by discipline 

Physics/ Astronomy 

Mathematics 

Biology 

Electrical engineering 

Computer science 

Political science 

% increase in 
citations with 
Open Access

170-580

35 to 91

-5 to 36

51

157

86

188 

Swan,  A.  (2010)  The  Open  Access  citation  advantage:  Studies  and  results  to  date.  Technical  Report  ,  School  of  Electronics  & 
Computer Science, University of Southampton. 

EN 

74 

   EN 

 
 
                                                 
Philosophy 

Medicine 

Communication studies (IT) 

Agricultural sciences 

45

300 to 450

200

200 to 600

Table 6: Citation advantage by discipline 
Source: Data from: Swan, 'Open Access citation advantage'189 

(9) 

How is scientific information preserved? What are the challenges? 

The issue of the digital preservation of scientific information concerns how the digital record 
of science can be stored efficiently, and kept accessible, understandable and re-useable in the 
future. The increasing quantity of native-born digital scientific information, be it as scientific 
journals, data or software, has shifted the balance, roles and responsibilities regarding digital 
preservation.  In  the  analogue  world,  the  task  of  long-term  preservation  was  the  sole 
responsibility of libraries, but this is not longer the case.  

With the advent of the Internet, most scientific journals are accessed from publishers' servers, 
and therefore many libraries do not possess physical copies of the journal articles that need to 
be preserved. It therefore falls to publishers to ensure permanent long-term access to scientific 
information.  A  PARSE-Insight  study  looked  into  the  preservation  of  scientific  content  in 
Europe.190 It showed that most scientific journals (93 %) are subject to preservation measures 
or  policies  implemented  by  publishers.  The  same  study  shows,  however,  that  only  23%  of 
small publishers have reported undertaking a dedicated preservation strategy. Some publishers 
(52  %)  have  transferred  preservation  responsibilities  to  a  third  party  (for  example,  JSTOR, 
Portico,  LOCKSS).  Alternative  solutions  are  also  being  implemented,  notably  through 
national  library  services  such  as  the  e-Depot  at  the  Koninklijke  Bibliotheek  in  the 
Netherlands. Its digital archiving services are available to publishers worldwide and are used 
by  many  major  publishers.  It  is  also  considering  developing  preservation  services  for  open 
access journals.  

While  the  PARSE-Insight  Study  highlighted  that  the  preservation  of  scientific  journals  is 
reasonably well-organised at present, there is concern about entrusting preservation entirely to 
private enterprises. Their preservation efforts depend on the underlying business case and the 
economic well-being of the company.  

Legal  deposit,  i.e.  the  obligation  for  content  producers  to  make  one  or  more  copies  of 
scientific  publications  available  to  a  designated  deposit  body,  is  a  central  issue  for 
preservation. Although Member States have started extending deposit arrangements to digital 
information, this is progressing at different speeds and covers different types of information. 
PEPRS (Piloting an E-Journals Preservation Registry Service) is a registry service providing 

189 

190 

EN 

Open 

Swan, 

Access 

A. 
http://eprints.ecs.soton.ac.uk/18516/2/Citation_advantage_paper.pdf 
http://www.parse-insight.eu/downloads/PARSE-Insight_D3-6_InsightReport.pdf 

advantage. 

citation 

Studies 

and 

results 

to 

date, 

available 

at: 

75 

   EN 

 
                                                 
easily  accessible  information  about  inclusion  of  journals  in  preservation  services  and 
highlighting those e- journals for which no arrangements exist.191 

The investment required to set up a repository is estimated to be  between USD 8000 (EUR 
5800)  and  USD  1,800,000  (EUR  1,309,000),  with  a  mean  of  USD  182,550  (EUR  132,800) 
and  a  median  of  USD  45,000  (EUR  32,700).  The  estimated  cost  of  the  daily  ongoing 
operations budgets is USD 8600 (EUR 6250) to USD 500,000 (EUR 364,000), with a mean of 
USD  113,543  (EUR  82,585)  and  median  of  USD  41,750  (EUR  30,370).  The  success  of 
institutional  repositories  will  depend  largely  on  the  compliance  rate  by  researchers  in 
depositing their manuscripts. Recent data estimates that the average number of journal articles 
in repositories is 7523 plus a further 6888 articles from non-refereed publications. 

(10)  Why and how are research data different from publications? 

The  pace  of  innovation  in  data-intensive  research  is  increasing  rapidly.  Researchers  collect 
huge amounts of data, but this data – even when underpinning scientific publications – is only 
rarely  available.  Even  when  it  is  available,  it  may  not  be  presented  in  a  form  that  is  easily 
understandable and reusable by others. In many scientific fields, each dataset is unique, costly 
and irreproducible; if the data is not preserved, it is lost for ever. As an illustration, analysing 
the state of the Earth, its environment and its variability over time, requires a large number of 
observations. It is impossible to go back in time and resample environmental data; therefore 
global and complete measurements need to be taken. Earth observations are of unique value to 
understanding climate change and natural hazards, and in developing an appropriate response 
to climate change and related threats. 

Opening  up  opportunities  to  access  and  (re)use  this  data  in  combination  with  its  related 
publications, and to build on it, e.g. through data-mining, will benefit innovation and research. 

The potential benefits of increased access to, and re-use of, research data include:  

• 

• 

• 

• 

• 

• 

• 

• 

maximised investment in data collection;  

broader  access  where  the  cost  of  repeating  research  would  be  prohibitive  for 
individual researchers/institutions;  

potential for new discoveries from existing data;  

increased research impact and reduced time-lag in realising those impacts;  

new collaborations and new knowledge-based industries would form;  

increase in data quality and prevention of fraudulent behaviour by researchers; 

transparency in research funding; 

increased visibility and promotion of institutions and researchers; 

191 

http://peprs.org/peprs/peprs.asp 

EN 

76 

   EN 

 
                                                 
• 

enabling  greater  cross-sector  collaboration  and  opportunities  including  researchers 
outside the core of higher education and public sector research networks, researchers 
in industry, government and non-government organisations; 

The increasing availability of primary sources of data in digital form has the potential to shift 
the balance away from research based on secondary sources (such as scientific publications), 
thus positioning data as the central element in the scientific process. In this context, the ability 
of researchers to extract further meaning from masses of data stored in institutional, national 
or  community  repositories  is  a  key  factor.  The  deployment  of  standardised  mechanisms  to 
store,  archive,  authenticate,  access,  transfer,  preserve,  curate,  certify  and  interpret  scientific 
data is therefore required. Furthermore, the deployed scientific data infrastructure will require 
adaptation  in  cultures  and  new  approaches  and  competences,  given  the  intrinsic  relation 
between  data  and  associated  software  to  read,  interpret  and  process  it.  Some  publishers  are 
taking steps to sustain the scientific record by creating permanent links between the journal 
article  with  the  relevant  databases,  an  action  positively  seen  by  researchers.  It  is  important 
that these efforts are made jointly with those responsible for the long-term accessibility and 
preservation of these databases. 

We  may  also  see  the  emergence  of  re-use  'industries'  in  some  areas  of  research  and 
observation  (e.g.  with  geospatial,  meteorological  and  oceanographic  data,  etc.,),  with 
activities stimulating storage, discovery and access to datasets. 

Studies  have  been  undertaken  on  the  preservation  of  data  by  researchers192.  40%  of 
researchers have reported that they store between 1GB and 1TD of data. 11% are not aware of 
how  much  information  they  store.  There  is  a  variety  of  places  where  data  are  stored:  59% 
report to lodge data into a server of the organisation they adhere to, 51% keep data on their 
personal  workstation.  Only  20  %  submit  data  to  a  digital  archive.  It  may  be  concluded 
therefore  that  there  is  a  certain  lack  of  trust  on  the  side  of  researchers  on  the  capability  of 
digital repositories to provide adequate research data.  

Very  few  research  funding  organisations  and  universities  undertake  proper  research  data 
preservation activities. Quality standards for content in terms of authenticity and provenance, 
and quality standards for services are critical to both access and preservation of research data. 
Digital  preservation  solutions  are  undoubtedly  partly  technical,  and  the  tools  being  created 
will  enhance  digital  longevity,  but  these  solutions  are  also  equally  dependent  on 
organisational  issues.  Many  significant  challenges  remain  before  a  highly  efficient  and 
accessible  infrastructure  populated  with  useful  scientific  data  can  exist.  Many  of  the 
challenges outlines are already being addressed, but further efforts are needed in the following 
areas: 

• 

• 

• 

Authentication mechanisms are needed to make sure that data and collections can be 
trusted The data need to be in a form that makes reuse possible; 

Interoperability  of  data  resources  is  needed  to  make  collaboration  among  research 
teams and disciplines possible; 

The  security  and  integrity  of  data  resources  should  be  improved  to  increase  the 
confidence of data creators. 

192 

http://www.parse-insight.eu/downloads/PARSE-Insight_D3-6_InsightReport.pdf 

EN 

77 

   EN 

 
                                                 
Another development is the formation of virtual communities of researchers participating in 
large-scale web-based collaborations. Within those communities, researchers are opening up 
their  results  at  an  early  stage  to  the  research  community  and  interact  with  other  researchers 
who can analyse the data or re-use them with other datasets. 

Enhanced information technologies produce ever-growing amounts of data: As reported in the 
report "Riding the wave": Currently, about 2.5 petabytes – more than a million, billion data 
units – are stored away each year for mammogrammes in the US alone193. These could be a 
goldmine of data for epidemiological and drug research, if made accessible in appropriately 
anonymous  form  to  researchers.  Another  example  is  decoding  of  the  human  genome  and 
genome-based research: By August 2009, digital records of more than 250 billion DNA bases, 
from  various  species,  were  stored  in  the  US  government’s  public  GenBank  database.  An 
entirely  new  discipline  of  science  had  emerged:  systems  biology.  This  uses  computers  to 
simulate,  at  the  sub-molecular  level,  exactly  how  DNA,  proteins  and  the  other  chemical 
components of life interact – and in time, it will transform the practice of health sciences. 

A robust infrastructure including technological and organisational aspects is needed in order 
to maximise the effectiveness of use and re-use of research data,.  

In  addition  to  the  challenges  these  vast  amounts  of  research  data  create,  they  also  open  the 
possibility to completely new ways of doing science. In data-driven science, this abundance of 
research  data  can  be  explored  to  create  and  test  new  hypotheses.  There  is  now  widespread 
recognition  that  data  are  a  valuable  long-term  resource  and  that  sharing  them  and  making 
them  publicly  available  is  essential  if  their  potential  value  associated  with  re-use  is  to  be 
realised.  

Given  the  increasing  importance  attained  to  research  data,  many  research  funding 
organisations/universities  are  introducing  measures  to  encourage  and  facilitate  research  data 
publishing  and  making  it  widely  available  for  access  and  re-use,  in  particular  when  those 
datasets have  been  produced with  public funding.  This approach requires effective planning 
and  management  of  data  through  the  life-cycle  of  a  project.  Although  in  general  funding 
bodies tend towards encouragement rather than enforcement, funding bodies such as the UK 
Research Councils, NIH and NSF have developed several sets of actions that may be seen as 
paving the way for a pan-European approach. 

The issue of economic sustainability of digital preservation has been object of several studies 
aiming  at  identifying  the  necessary  conditions  and  actions  to  be  implemented  to  achieve 
sustainability  in  the  long  term.  The  study  "Sustainable  Economics  for  a  Digital  Planet: 
ensuring  long-term  access  to  digital  information  Blue  Ribbon  Report"194  has  identified  six 
necessary conditions:  

• 

• 

• 

• 

193 

194 

Timely actions to ensure access;  

The recognition of the benefits of preservation by decision makers;  

The selection of materials with long-term value;  

Incentives for decision makers to act in the public interest;  

http://cordis.europa.eu/fp7/ict/e-infrastructure/docs/hlg-sdi-report.pdf, p. 10. 
http://www.jisc.ac.uk/publications/reports/2010/blueribbontaskforcefinalreport.aspx 

EN 

78 

   EN 

 
                                                 
• 

• 

Appropriate organization and governance of preservation activities;  

On-going and efficient allocation of resources to preservation. 

(11) 

How much is the European Union investing into research? 

EU Member States' investment in R&D, reached EUR 236 billion in 2009. Under the Lisbon 
Agenda, the EU's goal in the area of R&D was to achieve a R&D intensity (i.e. expenditure as 
a percentage of GDP) of at least 3 % by 2010. Two thirds of R&D expenditure were set to be 
financed by the private sector. However, in 2009 R&D intensity stood at 2.01 % (compared to 
1.9  %  in  2007).  R&D  intensity  remains  significantly  lower  in  the  EU  than  in  other  major 
economies. The 3 % intensity target will still be maintained for the next ten years as one of 
the  key  targets  of  the  Europe  2020  strategy.  Given  the  above,  the  EU's  stakes  in  efficient 
access  and  dissemination  are  high,  not  only  because  the  output  of  the  scientific  publishing 
process of crucial importance for society’s development, but also because its investments are 
very relevant, since much of this activity is publicly funded. The combined R&D expenditure 
in  2009  public  sources  accounted  for  36 %  of  the  EU's  R&D  expenditure,  or  EUR  87 
billion195.  

Opening up access to research results is an important way to maximize the society's collective 
investment on research.  

FP7 is running over the period 2007-2013 is endowed with a total budget of over € 50 billion 
accounting for 4 percent of the EU budget. The framework programme accounts for about 5-6 
percent of EU's overall budget for the same period.  

In  line  with  the  EU’s  high  investment  in  research,  framework  programme  projects  generate 
many  publications  and  thereby  contribute  directly  to  Europe’s  total  output  in  terms  of 
scientific publications. Some indications on the publication output of Community (co-)funded 
research can be given on the basis of earlier programmes. For example the first figures of the 
OA Pilot in FP7 indicate that so far the total number of publications harvested by OpenAIRE 
is 1275 of which 1204 are OA.196 

195 

196 

http://ec.europa.eu/research/innovation-union/pdf/competitiveness-report/2011/part_1.pdf 
http://www.openaire.eu/fr/component/openaire/statspublications/default/539 

EN 

79 

   EN 

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

In  late  2008,  the  European  Commission  prepared  a  questionnaire  on  OA  and  preservation 
policies  in  Europe,  with  a  view  to  taking  stock  of  the  status  of  implementation  of  the  2007 
Council  conclusions  on  Scientific  Information.  The  questionnaire  was  presented  to  CREST 
members and observers, who in some cases designated national experts to respond to it. After 
replies  were  collected,  a  summary  of  responses was  prepared,  released  and  presented  to 
CREST  in  2009.  It  highlighted  that  many  initiatives  existed  at  the  level  of  universities, 
research  councils  and  other  non-governmental  organisations,  but  that  national  policies  were 
still  lacking.  The  Commission  has  taken  the  initiative  of  updating  the  collective  knowledge 
available  on  the  situation  in  Europe  with  a  second  questionnaire  to  ERAC  members  and 
observers. The questionnaire was sent to all ERAC members and observers on 25 November 
2010.  The  Commission  received  29  responses  between  21  December  2010  and  11  March 
2011. 

(1) 

Access and dissemination 

Much  of  the  debate  revolving  around  access  to  scientific  information  has  focused  on  peer-
reviewed  scientific  publications  in  journals  (publications  resulting  from  research  projects 
partly  or  fully  publicly  funded),  but  further  areas  are  also  crucial,  for  example  doctoral  and 
masters theses and research data. Research results are generated and circulate within specific 
environments  and  raise  specific legal  issues  such  as  copyright  and  VAT  rates  for  electronic 
in  collecting,  preserving  and 
products.  Moreover,  repositories  play  a  crucial  role 
disseminating  digital  intellectual  output  from  research.  Other  issues  deal  with  access  and 
dissemination  activities  at  national  level.  They  include  overall  national  policies  regarding 
publications and data, the development of repositories and stakeholder involvement. 

(2) 

Implementation of the 2007 Council Conclusions on Scientific Information 

In  addition  to  asking  respondents  to  describe  the  policies  in  place  for  dissemination  of  and 
access  to  scientific  information,  some  closed  questions  were  included  in  the  survey,  for 
example  whether,  generally  speaking,  the  situation  regarding  OA  has  improved  since  2009 
(previous survey), and whether the country has experienced problems implementing the 2007 
Council Conclusions on Scientific Information. The general impression is that, compared to 
2009, the situation has improved in many countries. Only very few respondents have replied 
that there has been no improvement at all in their country.  

(3) 

General policies and strategies 

Respondents were asked to describe the policies in place for the dissemination of and access 
to scientific information, including information on how these policies are financed. A growing 
number of countries have put or are currently putting in place clear strategies regarding access 
and dissemination, usually with a focus on open access or repositories. Open access has been 
incorporated  into  national  strategy  for  science  and  research  in  some  countries.  As  regards 
infrastructure,  national  archives  for  open  access  content  or  national  harvesting  systems  that 
can access open access material through national portals have been set up in some countries. 

(4) 

Open access to publications resulting from publicly funded research 

EN 

80 

   EN 

 
Open  access  refers  to  free-of-charge  accessibility  of  outputs,  such  as  research  articles,  over 
the  Internet.  A  frequent  bottleneck  to  achieving  a  more  widespread  use  of  open  access  and 
faster development of policies is lack of awareness and understanding of open access amongst 
researchers  and  policymakers.  The  questionnaire  asked  respondents  to  describe  policies  and 
other arrangements in place aiming to provide open access to peer-reviewed scientific journal 
articles  resulting  from  public  research  funding.  Some  countries  have  made  considerable 
progress  on  open  access,  while  others  are  slower  to  initiate  developments.  At  institutional 
level,  individual  universities  have  launched  projects  on  open  access,  and  there  has  been 
progress on the development of deposit and curation points. Some countries have high-level 
OA and preservation policies. At national level, arguments for open access have successfully 
been taken to the governmental level in some countries, and in some cases even incorporated 
into the national strategy for science and research. Where national-level or institutional-level 
policies  have  been  adopted,  there  is  success  in  increasing  the  amount  of  material  openly 
available and in raising awareness of open access amongst authors. Policies usually make the 
case for open access and are accompanied by guidance to researchers. However, a relatively 
good level of policy development does not mean that open access has been fully achieved in 
the EU. 

(5) 

Open access to other publicly funded research results 

While the debate on open access has up to now focused on scholarly literature, research data 
(be they numerical, graphical, audio or video files, etc.) and the general objective of gaining 
open access to data (‘open data’) is increasingly in the spotlight. The importance of research 
data is likely to grow in the coming years as information society tools have made it possible to 
access data directly, and because new information services are combining journal articles and 
data,  hence  applying  new  search  techniques  such  as  data  mining.  There  are  already  many 
policies from research funding agencies covering the accessibility of data created during work 
they have funded, and the number is expected to grow. Further developments are linked with 
e-science infrastructures and with relevant intellectual property rights issues. Policies on open 
access to research data remain less developed than policies on open access to publications, but 
the general concern for unlocking the full value of scientific data is growing, as reported in 
the 2010 report ‘Riding the wave':. Several respondents referred to European projects such as 
Europeana  and  e-infrastructures,  activities  that  are  typically  covered  in  the  European 
Commission  by  the  Directorate-General  for  Information  Society  and  Media.  Some 
respondents also mentioned activities in the European Bioinformatics Institute (EBI), which is 
a centre for research and services in bioinformatics that manages databases of biological data 
and provides free access to all its data resources. Less in the public eye than publications and 
data  are  doctoral  and  masters  theses.  Open  access  to  this  highly  valuable  resource  is 
progressing rapidly in Europe and is encountering fewer obstacles than publications and data. 

(6) 

Repositories of scientific information 

Well-designed e-infrastructure can enhance access and dissemination. In infrastructural terms, 
Europe  is  doing  well.  Replies  to  the  question  about  repositories  show  a  great  deal  of 
successful  national  activities,  and  many  of  these  look  to  standards  developed  at  European 
level.  There  are  too  many  initiatives  in  Europe  to  be  reported  in  an  exhaustive  manner,  but 
they  are  all  paving  the  way  towards  open  access.  Several  countries  have  created  national 
repository infrastructures. As reported by one respondent, this is both a complex and dynamic 
situation  since  the  infrastructure  is  provided  and  supported  by  a  number  of  independent 
organisations,  including  funders  and  universities.  As  illustrated  in  the  comment  of  another 

EN 

81 

   EN 

 
respondent,  there  are  many  important  initiatives  that  are  growing  fast,  but  they  can  easily 
remain ‘islands’ that are not sufficiently interconnected. 

(7) 

Specificities of research results 

The  Internet  makes  instant  access  to  and  dissemination  of  information  possible.  New 
information  and  communication  tools  offer  innovative  ways  to  add  value.  The  rapidly 
increasing  use  of  digital  content  in  research  and  in  the  dissemination  of  knowledge  has 
quickly  become  a  main  characteristic  of  modern  science,  challenging  traditional  ways  in 
which  research  is  conducted.  Repositories  are  important  places  to  store  knowledge,  but 
scientific journals still hold a central role within the scientific information system. The peer-
review  process  remains  the  central  quality-control  mechanism,  and  journals  remain  a  main 
vehicle  for  spreading  research  results.  Technological  changes  have  offered  publishers 
tremendous  opportunities  that  they  have  embraced  in  a  creative  way,  but  they  also  brought 
about  complexity  in  areas  such  as  copyright  and  VAT  rates.  Business  relationships  with 
publishers  remain  of  a  complex  nature  for  all  actors  involved.  Despite  the  fact  that  most 
governments keep investing in the dissemination of scientific information, research libraries 
often  have  to  find  creative  solutions  within  a  limited  budget,  and  despite  their  increasing 
responsibilities for access and dissemination. Moreover, journals are still central for scientists’ 
careers in connection with journal impact factors, the criticised, but much-used bibliometric 
indicator.  Finally,  open  access  is  developing  rapidly  but  ways  of  measuring  its  growth  and 
impact are still under development. 

(8) 

Long-term preservation 

Long-term preservation is a closely related, yet distinct, issue from access and dissemination. 
Preservation concerns ensuring the long-term storage, care and continuing free accessibility of 
(research) outputs. It is something that has largely fallen to national libraries or other national-
level organisations to tackle. There are also significant players in the area of preservation on 
an  international  scale.  While  many  of  the  responding  countries  have  put  in  place  notable 
initiatives  or  strategies  regarding  the  digital  preservation  of  cultural  heritage  in  general, 
specific attention to the preservation  of scientific information needs  to be further developed 
within  most  existing  national  policies  and  legislative  frameworks.  Moreover,  researchers  do 
not seem to always be aware that the preservation of scientific information articles and data is 
a key issue, although some progress has been made. 

(9) 

Cooperation and coordination 

Global  challenges  call  for  global  responses.  The  question  regarding  cooperation  focused  on 
coordination  among  Member  States  in  order  to  define  common  national  funding  body 
principles on open access, to improve the transparency of the contractual terms of "big deals" 
financed with public money, to assess the possibilities for achieving economies of scale, and 
to  achieve  the  interoperability  of  repositories.  There  are  many  networks  and  national  or 
international events, as well as projects and conferences in which professionals and relevant 
stakeholders meet. The goal is often how to identify common agendas and how to implement 
common  initiatives.  The  role  of  international  organisations  and  umbrella  structures  is 
regarded  as  crucial.  The  involvement  of  all  stakeholders  is  very  important,  whether  on  the 
topic  of  revisiting  agreements  with  publishers,  coordinating  advocacy  activities  or 
encouraging the sharing of good practices. 

EN 

82 

   EN 

 
(10) 

Role of the European Commission and the European Union 

involving 

the  Commission,  other  European 

Discussions 
institutions  and  European 
governments  help  to  define  the  Commission’s  guidance  for  national  authorities  and  bodies. 
The question asked in this section was about the role that respondents see for the European 
Commission/EU.  Answers  sometimes  went  further  than  considering  how  and  when,  in  a 
sector  where  both  public  and  private  interests  are  strong,  the  EU  can  speak  with  a  ‘single 
voice’. Respondents were generally very favourable regarding the  role that the Commission 
and/or the EU has or could develop further, whether on specific topics (data, copyright etc.) or 
regarding  the  benefits  that  Member  States  could  derive  from  EU  action.  As  one  respondent 
underlined,  there  is  considerable  potential  for  international  bodies  to  play  a  leading  role  in 
coordinating both nationally and internationally funded work. It is increasingly important that 
national infrastructures, embedded in national university and research environments, are seen 
as the basis on which international developments build in many disciplines, perhaps especially 
outside ‘big science’. It was generally felt that the European Commission has the position and 
visibility  to  play  a  leading  part  in  the  debate  on  access  to  and  preservation  of  scientific 
information. 

EN 

83 

   EN 

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

In  May  2011,  the  Commission  identified  the  811  projects  concerned  at  the  time  and  sent  a 
questionnaire to all project co-ordinators in order to collect feedback on experiences on both 
the implementation of the pilot and the reimbursement of OA publishing costs. 194 answered 
were received by the end of August 2011. They provide important input for the future of the 
OA policy and practices in Horizon 2020 (the future EU Framework Programme for Research 
and  Innovation),  and  for  the  preparation  of  a  Communication  from  the  Commission  and 
Recommendation to Member States on scientific publications in the digital age. 

Results 

General considerations 

For almost 60% of respondents who expressed an opinion, getting a common understanding 
in  the  consortium  on  how  to  best  share  research  outcomes  is  considered  easy  or  very  easy. 
Also for 60% of respondents with an opinion, understanding legal issues regarding copyright 
and licences to publish is difficult or very difficult. 

Self-archiving (Open Access Pilot in FP7) 

The  majority  of  respondents  find  it  easy  or  very  easy  to  have  time  or  manpower  to  self-
archive  peer-reviewed  articles  and  also  to  inform  the  Commission  on  the  failure  of  making 
best efforts to ensure open access to the deposited articles. Many respondents however do not 
know  the  toolkits  provided  by  the  Commission  for  the  purpose  of  offering  support  to 
beneficiaries of projects participating in the pilot. Nevertheless when they do, the majority of 
respondents with an opinion find them useful. 

Identifying a new, satisfactory publisher is rather difficult for the majority of respondents, yet 
40% of respondents with an opinion find it easy or very easy. Changing publisher or journal is 
also  rather  difficult  for  the  majority  of  respondents  –  and  is  equally  difficult  to  all  FP7 
research  areas  concerned,  yet  35%  of  respondents  with  an  opinion  still  find  it  easy  or  very 
easy. Difficulties are arising when the implementation of the OA mandate becomes concrete: 
negotiating with the publishers/journals is considered difficult or very difficult by almost 75% 
of respondents with an opinion.  

Half of respondents do not know or have no opinion about which publishers to be in contact 
with  regarding  their  open  access  publications.  For  the  majority  of  respondents  who  had 
contact or intend to have contact with publishers, Reed Elsevier comes first, closely followed 
by  Springer,  then  Wiley-Blackwell,  Nature  Publishing  Group  and  Taylor  &  Francis.  AAAS 
and Sage are also named. 

Respondents reported a total of 534 articles deposited or to be deposited in a repository, out of 
which 406 are or will be open access. According to the figures given by respondents, a total of 
68 articles are both  deposited and made open  access. Reasons  given for not  providing open 
access  are  first  the  publisher's  copyright  agreement  that  does  not  permit  deposit  in  a 
repository, followed by lack of time or resources. The highest number of articles deposited is 
in  FP7  research  area  ICT,  followed  by  the  areas  Environment  and  Health.  There  are  more 
articles deposited as the project is older. 

EN 

84 

   EN 

 
The  EU-funded  portal  OpenAIRE  ('Open  Access  Infrastructure  for  Research  in  Europe'197) 
has  been  supporting  the  pilot  since  2009  with  mechanisms  for  the  identification,  deposit, 
access  and  monitoring  of  FP7-funded  articles.  Half  of  respondents  did  not  know  about  the 
portal  before  answering  the  questionnaire,  the  other  half  had  known  it  mostly  through  the 
CORDIS website and various EC-related events, yet word of mouth and contact with their EC 
project officers were also reported. 

OA publishing (Reimbursement of costs in FP7) 

The majority of respondents did not know about the possibility to request full reimbursement 
of publication costs during the lifespan of FP7 projects and only 25% of respondents with an 
opinion  think  that  the  option  is  well-known  in  the  consortium.  Nevertheless,  the  older  the 
project, the more known the option. In total, almost half of respondents replied they intend to 
make use of this possibility in the future. 

Only  eight  projects  among  all  respondents  reported  the  use  of  reimbursement  of  OA 
publishing  so  far,  with  total  costs  from  0€  up  to  6100€.  Seven  replied  they  would  use  this 
possibility again, only one was not sure. 

When  asked  about  financial  aspects,  about  half  of  respondents  are  of  the  opinion  that  it  is 
expensive  (i.e.  it  is  better  to  spend  project  money  on  other  activities),  the  other  half  of 
respondents is not of such opinion. The vast majority of respondents are of the opinion that 
the  possibility  of  reimbursement  of  OA  publishing  costs  is  restricted  by  the  fact  that  most 
publishing activities occur after the project end (i.e. too late for reimbursement to be claimed). 

Nonetheless,  almost  70%  of  those  respondents  with  an  opinion  think  that  it  is  better  to  use 
self-archiving than OA publishing to satisfy the open access requirement in FP7.  

OA policy in the EU Framework Programmes 

The questionnaire was taken as an opportunity to ask forward-looking questions with regards 
to open access to data, the best sources of information about EC policies in the field, and EC 
support to FP7 researchers. 

Three  quarters  of  those  respondents  with  an  opinion  would  agree  or  strongly  agree  with  an 
OA  mandate  to  data  in  their  research  area,  providing  that  all  relevant  aspects  (e.g.  ethics, 
confidentiality,  intellectual  property  etc.)  have  been  considered  and  addressed.  There  are 
some differences depending on the FP7 research area with most agreement in Environment, 
ICT and e-Infrastructure, and less agreement in Energy. Only a small number of respondents, 
13%, have no opinion on the question.  

CORDIS  website  and  the  Participants  Portal  are  considered  together  the  best  source  of 
information to get information about future EC OA policies. EC project officers and national 
contact  points  are  also  highly  ranked.  OpenAIRE  is  also  viewed  as  a  valuable  source  of 
information. 

In a last question, project co-ordinators were asked how the European Commission could help 
researchers  comply  with  its  OA  policy.  For  many  respondents,  the  implementation  of  open 

197 

www.openaire.eu  

EN 

85 

   EN 

 
                                                 
access  can  be  perceived  as  a  burden.  Most  comments  relate  to  the  following  five  main 
categories, in order of importance: 

• 

• 

• 

• 

• 

Information: The prevailing comment is, unsurprisingly, about information, the lack 
thereof and the best ways to inform project co-ordinators and the consortium on open 
access  requirements  in  FP7.  Information  is  welcome  at  every  stage  of  the  process, 
from the launch of the call, to the time of contract negotiations, the signature of the 
grant  agreement,  the  kick-off  meeting  and  the  outset  of  the  project.  Many 
respondents  stress  the  need  to  send  an  info-package  to  all  applicants  to  FP7  calls, 
make use of reminders, and inform administrative persons in charge of EU funds as 
well as National Contact Points. 

Publishers:  There  are  many  comments  asking  the  European  Commission  to  inform 
publishers of FP7 requirements (in fact it is already the case for all main publishers) 
and  directly  negotiate  with  them.  In  practice,  there  are  suggestions  to  encourage 
publishers  to  agree  on  modifications  to  bring  on  their  usual  rules  on  copyright  and 
licences,  to  force  them  to  lower  their  fees,  or  to  make  papers  available  on  the 
project's  website  regardless  of  the  publisher's  policy.  Some  respondents  ask  to  put 
more  workload  on  the  publishers  and  less  on  the  projects,  others  encourage  policy 
actions.  There  is  also  a  proposal  to  ask  the  Commission  to  set  up  its  own  peer-
reviewed open access publication mechanism.  

Promotion: There are many comments focusing on the promotion of the benefits of 
open  access  in  general  and  training  of  all  involved  partners  (including  within  the 
Commission),  with  a  stress  to  inform  (sometimes  reinsure)  private  partners  that 
benefit of FP7 funds of the benefits of open access. 

Self-archiving  and  OA  publishing:  many  respondents  suggest  setting  a  system  that 
would fund OA publishing separately from the grant agreement and its limitation in 
time.  There  is  no  apparent  preference  from  one  system  (self-archiving)  above  the 
other (OA publishing). 

Support and assistance: Many suggestions are made to offer support and assistance to 
grantees  such  as  having  a  Commission  help  desk  (in  fact  already  a  feature  of 
OpenAIRE).  The  Commission  is  asked  to  be  concrete  and  detailed  in  its  guidance, 
but also simple, short, to the point and updated. Support  on how to deal with legal 
issues related to IPR and licences is also welcome. 

Additional comments focus on the enforcement and monitoring of open access requirements 
in FP7 and make practical suggestions with regards repositories. 

Conclusions 

The  dissemination  of  research  results  in  FP7,  including  self-archiving  and  costs  related  to 
open  access,  is  often  an  underestimated  aspect.  It  however  requires  specific  measures  and 
sustained investment. Despite recognised benefits, the implementation of open access remains 
a challenge. Open access also raises technical questions and legal issues, linked in particular 
to how researchers exercise their copyright. Further difficulties are the lack of awareness of 
researchers and of concrete support for them to practice open access.  

EN 

86 

   EN 

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

1. Does Open Access mean access to knowledge at no cost to the user? 

Yes,  Open  Access  (OA)  scientific  information  is  openly  accessible  at  no  cost,  over  the 
Internet, for the user/reader. Publically funded research has already been paid for by the tax 
payer and access to it should not result in further costs.  

2. Does Open Access only refer to publications? 

Open  Access  can  refer  to  any  form  of  scientific  information,  whether  publications  or  data. 
However,  the  FP7  Open  Access  Pilot  focuses  on  peer-reviewed  publications  in  scientific 
journals. 

3.  Does  Open  Access  interfere  with  the  commercial  exploitation  of  research  results,  e.g. 
through patents? 

No,  the  decision  whether  to  commercially  exploit  results,  through  patents  or  otherwise,  is 
made before the decision to publish (open access or otherwise).  

4. Are OA publications of lower quality? 

No, they go through the same peer review process as other publications. 

5. Is an OA requirement an obligation to publish? 

No, it is up to researchers whether they want to publish their research or not. 

6.  Does  this  mean  more  bureaucracy  and  protracted  negotiations  with  publishers  for 
researchers wishing to publish their results? 

No, in the FP7 open access pilot scheme an OA toolkit, including a model agreement between 
researchers and publishers, has been developed which is freely available.  

8. How will publishers be able to recoup their investments in the publishing process with OA 
procedures? 

As  concerns  Gold  OA,  publishers  will  simply  be  paid  by  the  author  (instead  of  the 
subscribers). The author will then be able to claim back these costs (which range from a few 
hundred to several thousand €) back from his/her institution or, in the case of FP7 projects, 
from the European Commission. As concerns Green OA, articles will not be made available 
in  the  repository  for  a  certain  time,  the  so  called  "embargo  period"  (which  typically  ranges 
from 6-12 months, depending on the scientific field). This allows the publisher to recoup their 
investment by offering the publication for a fee during this time period.  

7. Where can I find more information?  

A  variety  of  information  on  Open  Access  background,  the  Open  Access  pilot  in  FP7  and 
relevant EC funded projects is available at http://ec.europa.eu/research/science-society/ under 
the  heading  "Open  Access"  and  on 
the  OpenAIRE  project  at 
http://www.openaire.eu/en.  You  can  also  contact  the  European  Commission's  Open  Access 
team at RTD-OPEN-ACCESS@ec.europa.eu  

the  website  of 

EN 

87 

   EN 

 
Annex 5 – Key indicators on OA publishing in MS  

Member 
State 

Existing 
funder 
mandates 
for 
OA 
publishing198 

No.  of  OA 
journals  in 
2011199 

No.  of  OA 
repositories200

Share  of  the 
EU 
public 
R&D 
expenditure201 

Share 
of 
EU GDP202 

Austria 

Belgium 

Bulgaria 

Cyprus 

Czech 
Republic 

1 

1 

None 

None 

None 

Denmark 

1 

Estonia 

Finland 

France 

Germany 

None 

None203 

1 

4 

Greece 

none 

Hungary 

Ireland 

Italy 

Latvia 

1 

4 

1 

1204 

38 

23 

31 

4 

54 

31 

20 

38 

138 

242 

37 

20 

9 

195 

2 

9 

29 

5 

1 

6 

10 

5 

15 

62 

2.15% 

2.27% 

0.12% 

0.08% 

0.91% 

2.21% 

0.11% 

2.0% 

2.3% 

2.8% 

0.2% 

0.1% 

1.2% 

1.9% 

0.1% 

1.4% 

16.31% 

15.8% 

151 

22.06% 

20.2% 

14 

11 

14 

69 

3 

0.74% 

0.50% 

1.14% 

1.8% 

0.7% 

1.2% 

11.07% 

12.7% 

0.07% 

0.1% 

198 

199 

200 

201 

202 

203 

204 

According to openaire.eu (retrieved on 20 Dec 2011). 
According to www.doaj.org (retrieved on 20 Dec 2011). 
According to www.opendoar.org (retrieved on 20 Dec 2011). 
Based on the total federal or central government budget appropriations or outlays on R&D, excluding EU funding, as per 2008 

(2007  for  Greece  and  Portugal),  as  reported  in  http://epp.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/cache/ITY_OFFPUB/KS-32-10-225/EN/KS-32-
10-225-EN.PDF. 
Based on Eurostat figures ' Gross domestic product at market prices' for 2010. 
Mandate under preparation (source: Responses to the ERAC questionnaire). 
Mandate in statutory law. 

EN 

88 

   EN 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
Lithuania 

1205 

Luxembourg 

None 

Malta 

None 

Netherlands 

None 

Poland 

Portugal 

Romania 

Slovak 
Republic 

Slovenia 

Spain 

Sweden 

UK 

None 

None 

None 

None 

1 

4 

5 

15 

24 

1 

2 

51 

133 

57 

217 

26 

33 

400 

51 

530 

3 

-- 

-- 

24 

75 

40 

1 

-- 

3 

83 

45 

0.09% 

0.19% 

0.01% 

4.71% 

1.22% 

1.36% 

0.62% 

0.19% 

0.22% 

12.96% 

2.96% 

0.2% 

0.3% 

0.04% 

4.8% 

2.8% 

1.4% 

1.0% 

0.5% 

0.3% 

8.6% 

2.8% 

203 

13.05% 

13.9% 

205 

Mandate in statutory law. 

EN 

89 

   EN 

 
 
                                                 
Annex 6 - Glossary 

Open Access (OA) 

The  policy  and  practice  of  granting  immediate  and  free  internet 
access to scientific results (including peer-reviewed journal articles); 
for some it includes also the right to use and re-use the information 
contained  (conditions  such  as  a  request  to  provide  attribution  can 
apply) 

Green Open Access 

The  practice  of  self-archiving  some  version  of  an  article  either  on 
the author's website or (preferably) in a repository. Ideally the final 
publishers  version  is  archived,  i.e.  the  version  that  has  been  peer-
reviewed and edited with citable page numbering.  

Gold Open Access 

The  costs/fees  of  publishing  in  a  journal  or  of  a  monograph  for 
making it openly accessible are covered by authors (or the institution 
they are affiliated to) instead of readers paying via subscriptions.  

Repository 

Online  database  run  either  by  an  institution  for  research  of  all 
affiliated  staff  or  across  institutions  on  a  subject  basis  in  view  of 
granting access to the publications.  

Science, technical 
and medical 
publishing (STM) 

Term used to refer to an important segment of scientific publishing, 
covering  natural  science,  technical  and  engineering  studies  and 
medical  studies;  used  in  order  to  show  the  commonalities  in  the 
concern across those disciplines 

Impact factor 

A  traditional  metric  indicator  for  scholarly  journal  quality,  along 
with citation counts 

Big deal 

Sales practice of commercial publishers to offer big bundles of print 
and  electronic  publications  to  libraries  at  sometimes  considerably 
reduced  prices;  usually  does  not  leave  libraries  the  choice  for 
individual cancellations;  

(Funder/institutional) 
mandate 

Relates  to  the  policy  and  practice  of  funding  institutions  giving 
research  grants  or  of  academic  institutions  to  request  the  research 

EN 

90 

   EN 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
output to be made openly accessible 

Serials crisis 

Describes  the  phenomenon  that  prices  for  scientific  journals  have 
been rising far above inflation levels for many years  

Digital Object 
Identifier (DOI) 

A character string (a "digital identifier") used to uniquely identify an 
object such as an electronic document on the Internet; is part of the 
document  metadata;  helps  to  retrieve  exactly  the  version  of  a 
document 

Embargo period 

Period  within  which  an  article  published  in  a  commercial  journal 
may not be made openly accessible due to request by publisher 

Peer review  

Involves  the  systematic,  critical  review  of  a  submitted  scientific 
article  by  two  or  more  fellow  scholars  of  the  same  scientific 
discipline  as  the  author.  These  "peers"  are  selected  by  the  journal 
editor and are requested to assess the scientific article in respect of 
its  originality,  methodological  soundness,  the  significance  and 
strength of its conclusions.  

Article processing 
charges (APC) 

The  fee  charged  by  publishers  to  offset  the  costs  of  publishing  a 
journal  article, where those costs  are not covered by a subscription 
model 

Harvester 

Computer  software  technique  of  extracting  information  from 
websites 

Open Archives 
Initiative Protocol for 
Metadata Harvesting 
(OAI –PMH 
protocol) 

A protocol developed by the Open Archives Initiative. It is used to 
harvest  (or  collect)  the  metadata  descriptions  of  the  records  in  an 
archive  so  that  services  can  be  built  using  metadata  from  many 
archives. 

Hybrid journal 

Journal publishing articles under the Gold Open Access model and 
articles requiring a subscription 

EN 

91 

   EN 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Born-digital content  Content which is created (and published) in digital format only.  

Publicly 
research 

funded 

Publicly  funded  research  refers  to  research  undertaken  by  the 
government  itself,  or  through  grants  to  academic  and  other 
researchers outside the government 

EN 

92 

   EN