Partnering on Copyright

Identification & Discussion Of Particular Concerns

Academics may cite a number of concerns about Open Access (OA) and self-archiving. It is very useful for OA advocates to know what these concerns may be so that they can be discussed openly. Although this web site focuses on copyright issues, there are other concerns that may need addressing. Many of them are only perceived as problems due to a lack of understanding or possessing the wrong information. Below are some examples of academics’ possible concerns.

Disruption Of The Traditional Publishing Model

Authors see the traditional publishing model as an essential part of scholarly communication. By publishing their work in a high-quality traditional journal, authors will be assured that their research will gain prestige and research impact. These journals also offer the invaluable function of peer-review and the addition of other value-added services. Therefore, many authors do not see a reason to change their practices, especially if it means paying for their work to be openly accessible, i.e., the ‘author-pays’ model.

It is, therefore, particularly important to make it clear to academics that self-archiving is not an alternative to publishing in a traditional subscription-based journal, but is supplementary to the publishing process. In fact, 93 per cent of journals that have been processed by ePrints.org already allow authors to self-archive their work. The identification of self-archiving policies of publishers is made easy through use of the SHERPA/RoMEO database and Copyright Knowledge Bank.

There is also the choice of publishing in Open Access journals instead of a traditional subscription-based journal. These offer a level of peer-review and copy-editing comparable with a traditional fee-based journal, and are listed in a dedicated directory. More information on Open Access journals can be found by clicking here.

It is also the case that authors are not particularly concerned about the ‘serials’ crisis which has hit HEIs. This crisis stems from the fact that the price of journal subscriptions has increased greatly, while HEI library budgets have stayed the same or changed very little. Providing research output on freely accessible digital archives would greatly alleviate this problem. However, using this as an argument for self-archiving within the author stakeholder group has not been found very effective, as it does not directly affect the authors.

Quality Of Self-Archived Work

Authors have voiced concerns about the actual quality of work found in repositories. This comes from the fact that pre-prints, i.e., work before it has been peer-reviewed, as well as post-prints, i.e., work that has been peer-reviewed, can be mounted in repositories. Again, making it clear to academics that self-archiving is in addition to, and not instead of, traditional scholarly publishing will help allay such fears. The majority of content will have been peer-reviewed already. It is also the case that pre-prints will be clearly distinguished from post-prints in the repository. This issue is not of such concern to those academics who are used to sharing their work with colleagues in the form of pre-prints, such as those in the physics and computer science disciplines.

Process Perceived Time Consuming

Many academics believe that self-archiving takes up a lot of time. Some research has been carried out on the actual time it takes on average to deposit work. The article 'Keystroke Economy: A Study of the Time and Effort Involved in Self-Archiving' by Les Carr and Stevan Harnad (2005) is particularly good to consult. It ‘describes a preliminary study on two months of submissions for a mature repository and concludes that the amount of time spent entering metadata would be as little as 40 minutes per year for a highly active researcher’. Such evidence can be used to convince academics that deposit does not require lots of additional work for them.

A mediated service would also help in the short- to mid-term as repository staff can act on behalf of academics in the deposition process. Another way of challenging such perceptions is to actually demonstrate the deposition process, either by giving a demonstration, or by getting the academic to use the Demonstration EPrints Repository. For more information on this issue look at the Swan & Brown report (2005, p.51).

Preservation Issues

Another concern expressed by some academics is that work deposited in a repository may not be preserved indefinitely. Again, the fact that self-archiving is a supplementary process should be highlighted. The research output found in the traditional toll-based journal, or indeed in an Open Access journal, is the definitive copy, and it is this which should already be subject to any preservation policies.

Nonetheless, preservation issues should still be covered and clearly presented in IR policies. As well as the rights and warranties required of authors in order to mount and disseminate their work electronically, the IR must also specify its obligations to the author. As part of ‘University Copyright Policies’ a model author/HEI licence and a click-through version for authors has been designed, along with a set of ‘notice and takedown’ procedures.

Next