Open Access – Copyright Clearance Center Rights Licensing Expert Tue, 17 Jul 2018 07:00:39 +0000 en-US hourly 1 Open Access – Copyright Clearance Center 32 32 Has Scholarly Publishing Overstayed at the Hybrid Hotel? Mon, 16 Jul 2018 13:39:16 +0000 Scholarly publishing analyst Rob Johnson contemplates the dilemma at the heart of hybrid Open Access business models in an interview with Chris Kenneally.

The post Has Scholarly Publishing Overstayed at the Hybrid Hotel? appeared first on Copyright Clearance Center.

Publishing success stories from the digital age are few and far between. In scholarly publishing, so-called hybrid Open Access is one such rare bird – indeed, hybrid OA is now the fastest-growing and most popular journal publishing model in the world. That success, though, may prove its undoing.

Has Scholarly Publishing Overstayed at the Hybrid Hotel?

In a recent guest post for The Scholarly Kitchen, a blog from the Society for Scholarly Publishing that covers “What’s hot and cooking in Scholarly Publishing,” Rob Johnson contemplated the dilemma at the heart of hybrid Open Access business models: Conceived as a short-term way station for “closed” subscription journals as they move to “transition” to Open Access, the hybrid model has instead established itself firmly in the scholarly publishing environment and is now thriving.

According to Johnson, founder and director of UK-based Research Consulting, “the hybrid model is much easier and much less risky (for publishers). You retain your existing subscription models and you just allow people to pay article by article where they want to make it Open Access.

“The contentious part of this is that institutions, funders, and authors are paying additional amounts to make articles Open Access over and above the subscriptions,” Johnson says. “I think that’s where this has become a contentious business model.”

The post Has Scholarly Publishing Overstayed at the Hybrid Hotel? appeared first on Copyright Clearance Center.

]]> 0
How Well Do You Know Hybrid? Thu, 12 Jul 2018 08:07:46 +0000 Keep your finger on the pulse of open access with the most important conversations taking place this year on the topic of hybrid OA.

The post How Well Do You Know Hybrid? appeared first on Copyright Clearance Center.

While the open access (OA) publishing landscape in the scholarly research community is rarely stagnant, a flurry of events and developments over the last few months have ushered in a new collective focus on hybrid open access. How has it grown so significantly? Is it sustainable? What pressures are publishers likely to face from other key stakeholders in the community? What are the alternatives?

A working document dated 7 June 2018 relating to [the Horizon Europe] policy revealed that the EC is taking a significant turn in its OA approach and no longer covering publication fees for articles published in hybrid open access journals (see p. 107).

Below, we’ve assembled a handful of the most recent, definitive, and important perspectives on the current state of hybrid open access to answer these business-critical questions and help you stay informed.


A new report from Simba Information, Open Access Publishing 2018-2022, gives an excellent sense of the state of hybrid OA by the numbers, estimating that as of 2018, nearly all traditional subscription-based scholarly journals now offer a hybrid open access option to authors whereby for a fee, known as an article publication charge (APC), articles can be made freely accessible to non-subscribers after peer review. The global uptake of hybrid OA is thought to account for about 5% of all OA research article publishing, with varying degrees of concentration in different publications. Some journals contain about 2% hybrid content, while others may reach 20-30%. However, overall revenue from hybrid APCs outstrips that from pure OA journals two to one, in part because hybrid APCs are generally higher.


Springer Nature, early pioneers of the hybrid OA approach, recently conducted one of the first large-scale analyses of hybrid article data, publishing their findings in a report: Assessing the Open Access Effect for Hybrid Journals. Springer Nature’s sister organization, Digital Science, analyzed a global sample of over 70,000 articles published in Springer Nature hybrid journals to explore the relationship between OA and usage as implied by downloads; citations; and broader impact as implied by Altmetric data. Among key findings were that OA articles were downloaded on average 1.6 times more by users based at academic institutions and four times more by users overall, attracted an average of 1.6 times more citations, and garnered 1.9 times more news mentions than non-OA articles – effects seen even when accounting for Impact Factor and institution ranking. In addition to increased performance, Springer Nature cite the important role of hybrid journals in serving the whole research community by preserving the scope author publication choice and aiding in the cost of the transition to greater access to content.


Looking past 2020, the European Commission has begun planning their new funding program, Horizon Europe, which will run 2021-2027. A working document dated 7 June 2018 relating to this new policy revealed that the EC is taking a significant turn in its OA approach and no longer covering publication fees for articles published in hybrid open access journals (see p. 107). Additionally, depositing a pre-print will satisfy the open access mandate obligations. Previously, the EC had excluded hybrid APCs when they first introduced Open Access funds during the FP7 (Post-Grant) Open Access Pilot, but later covered hybrid Open Access in the following funding program, Horizon 2020 (2014-2020). While this decision is still subject to approval by European Parliament and national governments, others may be likely to follow in this same path, with UK research funders also undertaking major reviews of their OA policies.


Founder and Director of Research Consulting, Rob Johnson, recently shared his thoughts with The Scholarly Kitchen on the future prospects for hybrid OA publishing, arguing that publishers need to get serious about offsetting arrangements. Reframing the success of hybrid OA, Rob wonders whether it’s become established as a successful mixed business model in its own right, rather than encouraging flipping from subscriptions to APC-based business models, as it was first envisioned achieve. Publishers have responded to funder and library demands for transparency, spearheaded primarily by European consortia, by instituting an array of offsetting agreements, which bring with them varying degrees of effectiveness, depending on whether organizations are net producers or net consumers of research.

However, in many instances, offsetting arrangements ultimately add to the OA business burden due to a lack of necessary underlying infrastructure — robust, standards-driven workflows to identify authors, match them to institutions and funders, and apply the appropriate discounts or waivers. All too often, offsetting instead takes the form of a retrospective reconciliation of subscription and APC costs at the financial year end, and laborious checks by institutions to ensure that authors have not paid APCs unnecessarily. Ultimately, for hybrid publishing to become a sustainable OA strategy, there must be both transparency around the cost of publishing for the institution, and a seamless publishing experience for the author.

The post How Well Do You Know Hybrid? appeared first on Copyright Clearance Center.

]]> 0
Why Open Access Publishing is Growing in Latin America Thu, 21 Jun 2018 08:00:35 +0000 Latin American researchers have a specific social commitment to ensure that their work is accessible and contributing to the good of their communities.

The post Why Open Access Publishing is Growing in Latin America appeared first on Copyright Clearance Center.

The move towards open access publishing in scientific research is certainly a global one. However, Latin America or Iberoamérica, a larger community that includes Spanish- and Portuguese-language countries in both Europe and the Americas, is using the OA publishing model to a far greater extent than any other region in the world. Iberoamérican scientists especially are committed to the movement as a way to ensure that society benefits from their research.

Dramatic growth in repositories

The extent of OA’s adoption depends on who you ask but according to researcher Juan Pablo Alperin in his dissertation “The public impact of Latin America’s approach to open access, “it is evident that the degree of adoption of the OA models is fairly extensive [in Latin America], although there are no exact figures. The estimates range significantly, from as low as 51 per cent and one expert claiming closer to 95 per cent of all online journals being OA.”

However, a report recently published in Spanish by CERLALC, the United Nations Educational, Scientific, and Cultural Organisation centre for the promotion of reading and publishing in Latin America and the Caribbean, uses OpenDOAR data to highlight the fact that currently there are 519 OA repositories in Iberoamérican countries, with Spain leading (22 per cent), followed by Brazil (19 per cent), Portugal (10 per cent), Peru (10 per cent), Colombia and Argentina (both with nine per cent).

Regardless of which numbers you turn to, OA’s growth in Iberoamérica has been dramatic over the past few years. As an example, the number of OA repositories in Peru went from eight in 2010 to 48 in 2018. In Argentina, they grew from six to 44 in the same time period and from 25 to 99 in Brazil.

University presses prefer OA, even for books

A recent study of 140 Latin American university presses conducted by Elea Giménez Toledo from the Spanish research council CSIC, and Juan Felipe Córdoba-Restrepo, president of the association of Colombian university presses, ASEUC, reveals that OA is gaining a tremendous interest among university presses as well.

For instance, 32 per cent of the university presses surveyed reported that their institutions have specific policies supporting OA, while another 35 per cent are in the process of developing them. Nevertheless, 63 per cent of respondents declared OA publishing programmes, which means that university presses are publishing in OA despite the lack of official policies in some cases.

Interestingly, OA increasingly covers books in Latin America, not only journals, as is the case in other parts of the world: almost half of the university presses publish books under an OA model.

Life sciences journals defend OA

This year marks the 20th anniversary of the Scientific Electronic Library Online, a network of cooperative electronic publishers of scientific journals on the internet. Created in Brazil, today there are 13 Iberoamérican countries represented in SciELO’s journal collections, plus South Africa, with more than 1,200 active journals totalling approximately 750,000 articles.

Further evidence of the growing interest in OA and Open Science in Iberoamérica is the recent declaration in defence of OA issued by a large number of editors of life sciences journals in Spain.

Among other recommendations and requests, the declaration urges national research agencies to require their researchers to deposit their publications in institutional repositories and to reduce the emphasis of the journals’ impact index as a personal promotional tool.

Instead, it suggests that these journals promote new indicators related to the scientific content in articles instead of journal-related metrics.

Ultimately, the great diversity of publishing practices and institutional approaches account for the skyrocketing OA movement in Latin America, although regional economic constraints also play a role. Some believe traditional subscription models may restrict meaningful access to scientific knowledge in this part of the world.

On a cultural level, many Iberoamérican scientists hold a particularly resolute social commitment to OA, with a desire to lower any barriers between publicly funded scientific researchers and the benefits to society at large. Many researchers in Latin American countries also hope that OA-based dissemination methods for their work will help improve its visibility and impact on a global basis.


This post originally appeared in Times Higher Education.

The post Why Open Access Publishing is Growing in Latin America appeared first on Copyright Clearance Center.

]]> 0
Open Access Must-Reads, Spring 2018 Thu, 31 May 2018 09:27:37 +0000 Together with the Association for Learned and Professional Publishing (ALPSP), Copyright Clearance Center is excited to share the Spring 2018 edition of the “Open Access Must-Reads” series – a thoughtfully curated selection of important articles from the past few months that expound upon “can’t miss” developments in the world of Open Access.

The post Open Access Must-Reads, Spring 2018 appeared first on Copyright Clearance Center.

Together with the Association for Learned and Professional Publishing (ALPSP), Copyright Clearance Center is excited to share the Spring 2018 edition of the “Open Access Must-Reads” series – a thoughtfully curated selection of important articles from the past few months that expound upon “can’t miss” developments in the world of Open Access.

1) ‘Bronze’ open access supersedes green and gold

A recent survey of 100,000 articles sampled from the CrossRef database has revealed that the largest share of OA articles belongs to a new category described as “bronze” (or less accurately as ‘delayed OA’) – open-access articles available on websites hosted by their publisher but not licensed for reuse.  Without a license, articles are free to read, but can’t be redistributed or reused, for example, in presentations or course material, severely curtailing their use.

2) Europe’s open-access drive escalates as university stand-offs spread

Sweden joins Germany and the Netherlands as the latest country to hold out on journal subscriptions. In the background, librarians from other countries are sharing negotiation strategies to broker new deals with publishers aimed at accelerating the progress of the open access movement.

3) Open-access charges ‘create new inequalities’ in publishing

A global shift towards open-access publishing is opening up new types of inequality within academia, according to research that highlights institutional “stratification” in publishing access outcomes. There appears to be evidence supporting the existence of a class division between universities, whereby researchers from lower-ranking institutions with fewer resources are often left with little choice but to publish in closed-access journals.

4) EU appoints special envoy on OA

The European Union has appointed Robert-Jan Smits as its Special Envoy on OA. Previously he was the Director General for Research, Science and Innovation. In an interview with him in Horizon (the EU Research and Innovation Magazine) he states that he has been tasked with making policy recommendations by October 2018 that will enable OA to all funded research by 2020.

5) Update to Analysis of Open Data Policies finds new activity around OA in multiple countries

SPARC Europe updated its analysis of open data policies. Of the 28 EU member states, 11 have national research data policies, and most of these are owned by national research funders and apply to grant recipients. New activity around national approaches to open data and open science has been identified in several countries, notably the Czech Republic, Hungary, Serbia and Sweden.

6) OA policy reviews in the UK

Two organizations in the UK have indicated they will be undertaking internal reviews of their OA policy in 2018.

A new body, UK Research and Innovation was established, bringing together the UK Research Councils and part of HEFCE, now renamed Research England. UKRI has announced plans to review current HEFCE and RCUK OA policies over the next 12 months, emphasizing the need to consider: evidence-based insights; sustainable business models; funding of APCs in hybrid journals; demonstration of value added by OA; double dipping. While UKRI is publicly funded, it appears to have chosen to conduct its review without public consultation at the present time.

Wellcome also announced a review of its OA policy, to be completed before the end of 2018. It states that the review is intended to ensure that the cost of delivering the policy is ‘fair and proportionate,’ and that the policy supports its goals, whilst being as clear and unambiguous as possible.

Other Recommended Reading:

Open Access Must-Reads, Winter 2018 

Open Access Must-Reads, Fall 2017

Open Access Must-Reads, Spring 2017

The post Open Access Must-Reads, Spring 2018 appeared first on Copyright Clearance Center.

]]> 0
Join CCC in Chicago at SSP’s 40th Annual Meeting Thu, 24 May 2018 08:00:15 +0000 With topics ranging from metadata to OA to computer-assisted mining in scholarly publishing, the CCC team picks their favorite sessions at this year's 40th SSP Meeting in Chicago.

The post Join CCC in Chicago at SSP’s 40th Annual Meeting appeared first on Copyright Clearance Center.

SSP’s 40th Annual Meeting, one of the premier forums for discussion amongst scholarly publishers, librarians and academics, is right around the corner. This year’s theme, “Scholarly Publishing at the Crossroads: What’s working, what’s holding us back, where do we go from here?” highlights both the uncertain nature of our industry’s future as well as the great opportunities that lie ahead for us.

You can find CCC at Booth #211, and catch our photo booth at the 40th Anniversary Celebration at the Navy Pier. My colleagues and I will be at the show and wanted to share some of our “can’t miss” sessions at this year’s conference:

Jen Goodrich, Director of Product Management

Session 4D – Making Metadata Work for Everyone: A Functional View of Metadata in the Scholarly Supply Chain (Thursday 31 May, 4:45PM)

My first session choice is an expert panel, led by Marianne Calilhanna from Cenveo Publisher Services, about the entire lifecycle of metadata throughout the publishing workflow. This topic couldn’t be more timely or relevant, as it’s becoming increasingly clear that scholarly publishing can only be as good as our data.  I’m looking forward to hearing a detailed analysis how metadata flows—and sometimes gets caught—during the publishing workflow.

Sponsored Session: Diversity & Inclusion (Wednesday, May 30, 1:30PM)

My second pick is a sponsored session, moderated by my wonderful colleague, Rebecca Mcleod. She’ll be leading a very important discussion about the culture of the scholarly publishing community—specifically around efforts to create a more diverse and inclusive environment that welcomes people of all backgrounds. I’m really looking forward to this meaningful discussion and to hearing the panel’s thoughts on ways we can improve and grow together as a community.

Kurt Heisler, Sales Director

Plenary: Previews Session (Friday 1 June, 11:00AM)

The Previews Session is a roundup of the industry’s newest and most noteworthy products, platforms and content. I’m really looking forward to this one and think it’ll be a great synopsis of the most important recent developments in scholarly publishing; a definite “must-attend” on my calendar.

Session 2A – How Do We Move the Goal of Open Access from Concept to Reality? (Thursday 31 May, 2:00PM)

Moderated by ALPSP’s Audrey McCulloch, this session promises to be an informed and pragmatic analysis of the state of OA, including a rundown of some of the biggest challenges stakeholders are facing today. As the scholarly publishing industry begins to search for and uncover ways we can streamline the research workflow, I’m really looking forward to hearing the speakers offer their takes on ways we can improve.

Chuck Hemenway, Sales Director

Virtual Meeting Session 5A: Funders as Publishers—What does this mean for traditional publishers and the scholarly publishing industry as a whole…? (Friday 1 June, 11:00AM)

My first session pick, moderated by Sheridan PubFactory’s Tom Beyer, will take a look at the rise of publisher-funders like, Wellcome Trust. These firsts-of-their-kind are still finding their place within the market so I’m keen to hear the industry experts on this ticket offer their perspectives on how publisher-funders might find their place within—or perhaps disrupt—the scholarly publishing market.

Virtual Meeting Session 1D: The Gift That Keeps on Giving: Metadata & Persistent Identifiers Through the Research & Publication Cycle (Thursday 31 May, 10:30AM)

My second pick—and the session I’m most excited to attend—is this panel, lead by Ringgold’s Christine Orr, about metadata throughout the scholarly lifecycle. It’s becoming increasingly clear that we’re simply not doing enough with our metadata and that we’re missing opportunities to collect valuable information that would make the research workflow more seamless for everyone. I’m really looking forward to hearing what these industry heavyweights have to say about our current state and how we, as a community, can improve.

Darren Gillgrass, Business Development Director

Session 3F: (Don’t) Rage Against The Machine

My first session pick promises to be a forward-thinking discussion about why—and how—we should better incorporate computer-assisted mining activities into the scholarly, academic and research library communities. Moderated by DMedia’s David Myers, the panel’s experts are well-equipped to make the case for utilizing technology to better facilitate scientific progress. Looking forward to hearing their perspectives on how we can ensure the scholarly publishing community keeps pace with technology and benefits from its advances.

Session 2D: Unlimited Data Plans? Data Publication Charges (DPCs), DPC Sponsors, Data Availability Statements, and Licensing Options (Thursday 31 May, 2:00PM)

My next pick is a session about lesser-known article fees: data publication charges—or DPCs. Moderated by Anna Jester from eJournal Press, this session features four organizations which currently either require authors to deposit data or support authors in complying with data mandates. These data experts will explore what DPCs mean to scholarly publishing, from operational realities, to licensing, and beyond.

Which sessions are you looking forward to attending? Tell us in the comments section!

We hope to see you in Chicago. Follow along on social media with #SSP2018.

The post Join CCC in Chicago at SSP’s 40th Annual Meeting appeared first on Copyright Clearance Center.

]]> 0
Handle with Care: Metadata in Scholarly Publishing Thu, 17 May 2018 08:00:41 +0000 Industry experts discuss the need for improved handling of crucial metadata throughout the scholarly workflow.

The post Handle with Care: Metadata in Scholarly Publishing appeared first on Copyright Clearance Center.

It’s readily apparent that metadata is an essential part of scholarly publishing. So why do we let so much of this treasured commodity slip through our fingers over the course of the publication process?

Each portion of the publication lifecycle requires important metadata, but not all of this information is carried all the way through the workflow. Instead, much of it remains in the isolated silos in which it’s collected. Inera’s CEO Bruce Rosenblum notes, “There’s just form after form after form of metadata collected [in submission systems] and it’s amazing how little of that makes it through to the final XML or beyond.”

For example, did you know that ORCID IDs (i.e. author IDs) often don’t make it out of the submission system? And that when publishers produce XML from manuscripts, Ringgold IDs collected at submission for author affiliations are often lost, effectively expunging hugely important data from publisher records?

But the lack of synchronization across publication phases—and the subsequent loss of this important metadata—persists. Ringgold’s North American Sales Director, Christine Orr, comments, “It negatively impacts all kinds of things downstream, and results in a lack of discoverability, lack of inoperability between other systems, and the inability to really, truly analyze your author base.” And it makes the publication workflow rife with inaccuracies. Bruce Rosenblum notes, “If it’s not automatically integrated into the workflow, then it’s a much more manual process, and hence a potentially inaccurate process.”

This information matters to both publishers and funders. Having unbridled access to the complete set of metadata collected throughout the publication lifecycle would mean infinitely better information about not only authors but also grant appropriation. It would enable better business analysis by publishers and funders alike, and would help all stakeholders identify trends in areas like open access, measure the impact of funding and make more informed decisions. Rosenblum notes, “Publishers need to understand there’s a huge value in integrated metadata. And by integrated, I mean that its shareable across systems.”

So what are we—the scholarly publishing community—waiting for? We need to begin by handling our existing metadata with care. And we need to invest in building out metadata-handling processes—holistically and systematically— within our own organizations to prepare for additional standards on the horizon. Finally, we need commitment from stakeholders across the scholarly publishing industry to use these standard identifiers that are being lost most often; namely grant IDs, funder names and author and co-author affiliation IDs.

Let’s continue the conversation at this year’s SSP Meeting in Chicago. Join me and fellow industry experts (listed below) as we analyze the research workflow, identify gaps, and discuss pragmatic ways we can work together to make the publication workflow more seamless and beneficial for all stakeholders.

Hope to see you in Chicago.

SSP Session Information:

Session 1D
The Gift That Keeps on Giving: Metadata & Persistent Identifiers Through the Research and Publication Cycle

Thursday, May 31 at 10:30AM
Virtual Session

Christine Orr, Ringgold
Bruce Rosenblum, Inera
Sarah Whalen, AAAS
Mary Seligy, Canadian Science Publishing
Howard Ratner, Chorus
Jennifer Goodrich, Copyright Clearance Center

The post Handle with Care: Metadata in Scholarly Publishing appeared first on Copyright Clearance Center.

]]> 0
Collaboration & Community: The Transition to Open Access Thu, 19 Apr 2018 09:00:48 +0000 Copyright Clearance Center hosted an expert panel discussion, “Collaboration & Community: The Transition to Open Access,” at The London Book Fair, assessing the state of OA today.

The post Collaboration & Community: The Transition to Open Access appeared first on Copyright Clearance Center.

The UK is well above global averages of open access publishing, and is at the forefront of a significant global movement which is fundamentally changing the way that research is conceived, conducted, disseminated and rewarded,” noted a December 2017 report for the Universities UK Open Access Coordination Group. Responsibility for driving remarkable change across the scholarly publishing landscape is widely shared, yet the evolving relationship of publishers and institutional libraries is perhaps the most critical.

Copyright Clearance Center’s panel discussion, “Collaboration & Community: The Transition to Open Access,” at The London Book Fair on April 10, 2018 picked up on these themes. The panel, moderated by Copyright Clearance Center’s Christopher Kenneally, assessed the state of OA today and laid out a vision for a sustainable and integrated publishing workflow solution that minimizes costs, promotes transparency and supports a range of business models.

Panelists included: Sven Fund, Managing Director of Knowledge Unlatched; Chris Leonard, Head of Product at Emerald Publishing Group; Matthew Day, Head of Open and Data Publishing at Cambridge University Press; and Danny Kingsley, Deputy Director of Scholarly Communications and Research Services at Cambridge University Library.

Stream the video here.

Transcript Excerpt:
CCC’s Chris Kenneally Talks with CUP’s Matt Day About The State of OA Today 

KENNEALLY:  So from here, we’ll fast forward to 2018 and where we are today.  Quickly, what is your sense of the status of open access, and describe what you think is the image of open access.  As you imagined it in 1998, it was a movement to free all those texts.  How do you think people perceive open access in the publishing and in the research community today?

LEONARD:  So in those last 20 years, I’ve worked on both sides of the fence for open access publishers and also for traditional subscription publishers, so I have a fairly rounded view of it, I would say.  And in 1998, I thought by now over half of the world’s scientific research literature would be freely available through open access, and also that within the next five years, it would be 100%.  Now, the fact that we’re still quite a long way from that – so we’re talking 20 years, and I think that research article you mentioned said we’re at 24%.

KENNEALLY:  Around about 20 million, yeah, and 24%, right.

LEONARD:  So that’s fairly slow uptake, I think.  You would hope at some point it will hockey stick upwards.  But I think in order for that to happen, something fairly fundamental needs to alter.

KENNEALLY:  Well, that’s what we’re going to come back to you about, because in your role at Emerald, you’re looking at the future of open, and I want to hear more about that.  But, Matt Day, that’s also what you’re doing at Cambridge University Press.  And as you listened to what Danny had to say and what Chris had to say, how do you see the state of open access today yourself there?  It was a revolution, but today, it’s more of a question of mechanics.  I’ve heard it put in this way, that it’s gone from Woodstock to Wall Street, from a kind of revolutionary movement to one that’s very much business focused.  Would you agree?

DAY:  Yes.  I think the day-to-day realities of open access are very complicated at the moment. The day-to-day realities of open access are very complicated and more complicated than perhaps I certainly imagined in the early days of BioMed Central.  I would certainly echo Danny and Chris’s comments that there’s a – in the early days, it was seen very much as an ethical, a hearts and minds thing.  Helping people to understand what open access is I think is still an ongoing issue, particularly for Danny and us.  But the mechanics of it have become a much bigger part of certainly my life.  Making it work internally so that we do actually – are able to publish open access material that goes through the system properly.  And for us, I think diversity is a big theme for us.  We work with many different stakeholders.  They have different feelings.  Some of them embrace open access.  Some of them are more cautious.  Some people are outright hostile still, I think.

So working with these different stakeholder groups is complex, and it’s evolving, as well, so that makes planning for the future very difficult.  The landscape is changing greatly, I think, still.  It’s definitely not at kind of a status quo that’s going to continue, I think.  So that complexity and diversity I feel is a feature of today.


The post Collaboration & Community: The Transition to Open Access appeared first on Copyright Clearance Center.

]]> 0
Survey Says: Transition to Open Access Publishing Can’t Happen Fast Enough Thu, 12 Apr 2018 22:30:45 +0000 Most respondents to the Springer Nature survey said the move to all future scholarly articles being made accessible via open access was only just a matter of time, with two-thirds hopeful it could happen within 10 years.

The post Survey Says: Transition to Open Access Publishing Can’t Happen Fast Enough appeared first on Copyright Clearance Center.

The European Commission sums up the positives of OA best: “Nowadays, it is widely recognized that making research results more accessible contributes to better and more efficient science, and to innovation in the public and private sectors.” But is the transition happening quickly enough?

Springer Nature recently surveyed 200 professional staff working in research institutions and libraries around the world to gauge their opinions on OA, including when they think it will become the dominant publishing model.

Inside the Results of Springer Nature’s OA survey

70 percent of the respondents agreed that all future research articles, scholarly books and research data should be accessible via OA, while almost all (91%) said ‘open access is the future of academic and scientific publishing.’

Reporting on the findings, Research Information noted that the outlook for an OA future differed among researchers and authors. In a 2017 survey of Springer Nature authors, 67% agreed that OA is the future, compared to the 91% of researchers in 2018.

Related Reading: Defining Open Access in 4 Minutes or Less

Most respondents said the move to all future scholarly articles being made accessible via open access was only just a matter of time, with two-thirds hopeful it could happen within 10 years. But, there’s a desire for the transition to happen quicker, with respondents showing a low level of satisfaction with the current speed of progress.

Respondents were asked to leave their comments at the end of the survey, in order to get a more detailed view of progress. It was identified that open science is on the agenda of many organizations and funders, acting as a key driver of open access. Meanwhile, research data sharing was found to be somewhat lacking in terms of policy and education.

Commenting on the findings, Carrie Calder, VP for Business Development and Policy, Open Research at Springer Nature, said it was apparent that while the benefits of OA are resonating, many researchers are still struggling to share data so that it is easy found and used by other.

She called the rise of open research “one of the major forces reshaping the way that researchers collaborate to advance discovery,” adding that open science “beckons with innumerable rewards.”

Ready to learn more about OA? Check out these resources:


The post Survey Says: Transition to Open Access Publishing Can’t Happen Fast Enough appeared first on Copyright Clearance Center.

]]> 0
Three Simple Ways to Support Your OA Ecosystem Thu, 01 Mar 2018 08:00:56 +0000 With a few simple steps, you can better support an open access ecosystem: collaborate with institutions; scale APC billing processes; apply data standards.

The post Three Simple Ways to Support Your OA Ecosystem appeared first on Copyright Clearance Center.

The current approach to APC management can be highly fragmented and beset by inefficiencies in process and scarcity of resources. Academic institutions themselves face many of the same problems, and so publishers and institutions have significant incentive to collaborate on streamlining the process. With these few simple steps, you can better support an open access ecosystem.

Develop Relationships with Institutional Administrators

Author engagement is crucial to the success of the open access movement, but many authors need support in navigating a complex and ever-changing web of funder mandates and an equally varied set of publisher policies. They may also need help in accessing institutional funding for APCs and complying with institutional mandates and procedures.

As a result, a two-way relationship between author and publisher is transforming into a three- or four-way relationship involving the institution and potentially an external funder.

Karen Hawkins, Senior Director, Product Design at the Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers (IEEE), explains, “What we find is that authors are not always clear on funder requirements and the license that they want, and so we know that we need to make the process more institution-friendly.”

This means recognizing that in some cases institutional administrators themselves may need to use manuscript submission and payment systems on behalf of their authors. Publishers can also overcome some of the delays in the open access workflow by developing good working relationships with key members of staff in the library or research support office, particularly at the most research-intensive institutions.

Develop a Scalable Approach to Management and Billing of APCs

As the volume of APCs continues to rise, both institutions and publishers acknowledge that manually processing individual invoices for each article is an unsustainable model. A few institutions remain cautious about the value of aggregated billing arrangements, fearing a loss of transparency in APC pricing, but such arrangements can be invaluable in reducing the administrative burden on both universities and publishers. Some publishers are also exploring more innovative arrangements, by which agreement is reached with a national funder or a consortium of libraries to offset article-processing charges against subscription costs.

Ensuring scalability should be uppermost in the minds of all publishers as they develop new business processes to support open access.

Adopt Emerging Data Standards and Promote Interoperability

The key to helping institutions meet funder requirements lies in obtaining better quality data at an early stage from publishers.

“What we need are actual APC costs, date of payment, license type, DOI and agreed publication date,” observed Valerie McCutcheon, Research Information Manager at the University of Glasgow.

The adoption of standards also creates opportunities for efficiency savings for publishers themselves. Many are already integrating ORCID and FundRef into

their workflows, and with the release of the National Information Standards Organization’s (NISO) Recommended Practice on Access and Licensing for e-content, standards are beginning to emerge in this area. Publishers also have a vital role to play in shaping the development of new standards, for example, by contributing to the work of the Consortia Advancing Standards in Research Administration Information (CASRAI).


A version of this article originally appeared in Book Business.

The post Three Simple Ways to Support Your OA Ecosystem appeared first on Copyright Clearance Center.

]]> 0
Join CCC in London at Researcher to Reader 2018 Thu, 22 Feb 2018 08:00:15 +0000 CCC's Jake Kelleher and Jennifer Goodrich share their “can’t-miss” sessions at Researcher to Reader, a forum for publishers and technology providers.

The post Join CCC in London at Researcher to Reader 2018 appeared first on Copyright Clearance Center.

The international scholarly content supply chain takes center stage every February in London at the Researcher to Reader Conference, a premier forum for discussion among content authors, publishers, librarians, and technology providers which ranges from content creation, discovery and use, through to archiving and preservation. 

CCC colleagues Jake Kelleher, Vice President of Business Development, and Jennifer Goodrich, Director of Product Management, share their take on “can’t-miss” sessions at this year’s conference: 


  • Workshop E – Open Access Communications (Mon 26 Feb, 10:20 AM)
    How can publishers, funders, research organizations and other stakeholders co-operate to communicate with each another and researchers more efficiently? 

This workshop, led by front-line industry experts Valerie McCutcheon, Research Information Manager, University of Glasgow; Catriona MacCallum, Director of Open Science, Hindawi Publishing; and Liz Ferguson, Vice President, Publishing Development, Wiley, is vitally important to the scholarly publishing ecosystem in this moment, making it one of my top “can’t miss” events. The question of sustainability for OA business models is in many ways predicated on the effectiveness with which authors, institutions, funders, and publishers align, and real solutions will only come about if these parties tackle challenges and obstacles together in forums such as this. 

  • Workshop D – Metadata Lifecycles (Mon 26 Feb, 10:20 AM)
    Why should researchers and readers care about metadata quality? 

My second pick is also a workshop, led by open data authorities Ginny Hendricks, Director of Member & Community Outreach at Crossref and founder of Metadata2020, and Ross Mounce, Open Access Grants Manager at Arcadia Fund. Beyond being an operational issue for publishers, rich, connected, and reusable metadata holds the promise of improving scholarly pursuits and advancing science for researchers and readers. When genuinely backed by all stakeholders, it can facilitate easy content discovery, bridge gaps between communities, and eliminate duplication of effort and research. Researchers and readers ought to learn as much as they can about metadata and ways to support it. 


  • Constants in a Changing World (Tues 27 Feb, 9:30 AM)
    How learned societies can survive and thrive in an open future.  

My first “must-attend” event is an expert panel discussion led by founder and director of Research Consulting and R2R Chair, Rob Johnson, alongside Catherine Cotton, CEO of the Federation of European Microbiological Societies (FEBS); Sally Hardy, Chief Executive of the Regional Studies Association, and Caroline Sutton, Director of Editorial Development at Taylor & Francis. In contrast to their larger counterparts, society publishers face unique challenges in terms of adapting to and offering value in an increasingly open landscape, while simultaneously pursuing their mission-driven activities in their field. When done right, however, OA can add to, rather than subtract from, the model of traditional society journal publishing. This panel is likely to have terrific advice on how to bring that vision to fruition.  

  •  From Open Access Dream to Administrative Nightmare (Mon 26 Feb, 3:30 PM)
    The ever-increasing burden of open access policy on libraries and researchers 

As part of the “Open Access & Open Science in Institutions” stream, this presentation from Elizabeth Gadd, Research Policy Manager at Loughborough University, and Yvonne Budden, Head of Scholarly Communications at the University of Warwick, promises to be really enlightening for funders, publishers, and technology providers, as these institution-based stakeholders elaborate on their current OA pain points. It’s incredibly important to discuss, evaluate, and appreciate the outcomes (good and bad) of OA mandates now that they have been operationalized. If the open model is to be successful in the long run, the needs of all players in the scholarly publishing ecosystem must be heard and accommodated with the assistance of new solutions, technology-based or otherwise.  


Interested in meeting up with Jen or Jake at Researcher2Reader?
Send a note to and we’ll get in touch to set up an appointment!  

The post Join CCC in London at Researcher to Reader 2018 appeared first on Copyright Clearance Center.

]]> 0