Authors : Tomas A. Lipinski, Katie Chamberlain Kritikos
“Open access” (“OA”) refers to research placed online free from all price barriers and from most permission barriers (Suber, 2015). OA may apply to research outputs published traditionally, such as books (Schwartz, 2012) and articles in academic journals (Suber, 2015), and non-traditionally, such as student dissertations and theses (Schöpfel & Prost).
The lack of legal barriers is grounded in and given effect through the law of copyright and contract, and the submission of content by authors is often executed through a publication agreement.
This paper studies the contract aspects of OA and the open publishing movement in library and information science (“LIS”) scholarly communication. To explore this phenomenon, it undertakes a case study of the publication agreements of five OA LIS journals.
The sample consists of a brand-new open journal with an agreements drafted by copyright librarians (journal 1) and top-ranked LIS journals that converted to OA (journals 2 through 5) (Scimago, 2017).
With a descriptive data analysis based on that in Lipinski and Copeland (2015; 2013) and Lipinski (2013; 2012), the case study investigates the similarities and differences in the agreements used by the sampled OA LIS journals.
The study builds on the best practices from the Harvard Open Access Project (Shieber & Suber, 2016; 2013). It recommends best practices for the drafting and content of OA LIS publication agreements.
URL : Legal and policy implications of licenses between LIS open access journal publishers and authors : A qualitative case study
Alternative location : http://www.qqml-journal.net/index.php/qqml/article/view/440
Authors : Matthijs van Otegem, Sofie Wennström, Kristiina Hormia-Poutanen
The publishing ecosystem of the future will be built on several models such as offsetting agreements as well as various open access publishing channels. The LIBER Open Access Working Group has issued five principles to support libraries in their efforts to negotiate offsetting deals as they move towards full open access to research information.
This article describes why the five principles were created and the underlying considerations and limitations encountered while working on them.
URL : Five principles to navigate a bumpy golden road towards open access
DOI : http://doi.org/10.1629/uksg.403
Authors : Arvind Kumar Singh, Bhaskar Mukherjee
Electronic information resources are increasingly become an important component of the collection-building activities of libraries. This paper attempts to understand how far the licenses of commercial publishers support resource optimisation in general and what other important issues that are usually ignored by publishers, knowingly or unknowingly, but are essential for better resource optimisation.
Five international publishers namely Elsevier, EBSCO, Sage, Springer, and Taylor & Francis were identified and analysed their agreements that are available in public domain with some model agreements like Liblicense model and model license developed by John Cox Associate.
Study indicates that core part of the negotiations still remain price, IP access, display, ILL/document supply, etc. while important issues like perpetual access, archiving, self-archiving, copy of individual articles and share the same for non-commercial use by authorised users were minor issues of the contract.
Furthermore, most of the obligations of the publishers that are identified as core issues in Liblicense model are also absent in commercial publishers’ license. A greater awareness of this to library managers is essential.
They must be acquainted with the clause of the license agreement of commercial publishers and must negotiate to that extent so that the access should be uninterrupted.
URL : Electronic Information Resource Optimisation in Academic Libraries: A Comparative Study on Licensing Provision of Commercial Publisher
Alternative location : http://publications.drdo.gov.in/ojs/index.php/djlit/article/view/12468
Open access clauses in publishers’ licenses: current state and lessons learned :
“In 2012, the Open Access Agreements and Licenses Task Force was launched by COAR to monitor, evaluate and promote the implementation of effective open access agreements and licenses. The task force has members from the repository, licensing and OA communities who share an interest in promoting sustainable and effective practices for open access. In 2012/2013 the task force undertook an environmental scan of the licensing language for article deposit into repositories. This report presents the result of the review and some lessons learned from organizations that have been successful in implementing OA clauses in publisher licenses.”
URL : http://www.coar-repositories.org/files/OA-Clauses-in-Publishers-Licenses.pdf
Licensing Revisited: Open Access Clauses in Practice :
“Open access increases the visibility and use of research outputs and promises to maximize the return on our public investment in research. However, only a minority of researchers will “spontaneously” deposit their articles into an open access repository. Even with the growing number of institutional and funding agency mandates requiring the deposit of papers into the university repository, deposit rates have remained stubbornly low. As a result, the responsibility for populating repositories often falls onto the shoulders of library staff and/or repository managers. Populating repositories in this way – which involves obtaining the articles, checking the rights, and depositing articles into the repository – is time consuming and resource intensive work.
The Confederation of Open Access Repositories (COAR), a global association of repository initiatives and networks, is promoting a new strategy for addressing some of the barriers to populating repositories, involving the use of open access archiving clauses in publisher licenses. These types of clauses are being considered by consortia and licensing agencies around the world as a way of ensuring that all the papers published by a given publisher are cleared for deposit into the institutional repository. This paper presents some use cases of open access archiving clauses, discusses the major barriers to implementing archiving language into licenses, and describes some strategies that organizations can adopt in order to include such clauses into publisher licenses.”
URL : http://liber.library.uu.nl/index.php/lq/article/view/8055/8536
The Creative Commons (CC) licenses are a suite of copyright-based licenses defining terms for the distribution and re-use of creative works. CC provides licenses for different use cases and includes open content licenses such as the Attribution license (CC BY, used by many Open Access scientific publishers) and the Attribution Share Alike license (CC BY-SA, used by Wikipedia, for example). However, the license suite also contains non-free and non-open licenses like those containing a “non-commercial” (NC) condition.
Although many people identify “non-commercial” with “non-profit”, detailed analysis reveals that significant differences exist and that the license may impose some unexpected re-use limitations on works thus licensed. After providing background information on the concepts of Creative Commons licenses in general, this contribution focuses on the NC condition, its advantages, disadvantages and appropriate scope. Specifically, it contributes material towards a risk analysis for potential re-users of NC-licensed works.
URL : http://zookeys.pensoft.net/articles.php?id=3036