IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jpubli/v6y2018i3p31-d157758.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

The UK Scholarly Communication Licence: Attempting to Cut through the Gordian Knot of the Complexities of Funder Mandates, Publisher Embargoes and Researcher Caution in Achieving Open Access

Author

Listed:
  • Julie Baldwin

    (UoN Libraries, University of Nottingham, Nottingham NG7 2RD, UK)

  • Stephen Pinfield

    (Information School, University of Sheffield, Regent Court, 211 Portobello, Sheffield S1 4DP, UK)

Abstract

Whilst take-up of open access (OA) in the UK is growing rapidly due partly to a number of funder mandates, managing the complexities of balancing compliance with these mandates against restrictive publisher policies and ingrained academic priorities, has resulted in UK higher education institutions (HEIs) often struggling with confused researchers, complex workflows, and rising costs. In order to try to address this situation, the UK Scholarly Communication Licence (UK-SCL) was formulated to bypass the root causes of many of these challenges by implementing a licensing mechanism for multiple-mandate compliance in one single policy. This is the first empirical study to focus on the genesis of the UK-SCL and how its implementation has been conceived thus far. A qualitative research method was used, taking the form of 14 semi-structured interviews with key stakeholders from the initiative across the UK. The results indicate that those working within UK HEIs are concerned with the complexity of the current OA policy landscape and are frustrated with the inertia within the current system, which has resulted in higher costs, further publisher restrictions, and has not addressed the underlying tensions in academic culture. The UK-SCL is seen by its initiators as a way to achieve further transition towards OA and take back some element of control of the content produced at their institutions. The study concludes by modelling the ways in which the UK-SCL is intended to impact relationships between key stakeholders, and discussing possible implementation futures.

Suggested Citation

  • Julie Baldwin & Stephen Pinfield, 2018. "The UK Scholarly Communication Licence: Attempting to Cut through the Gordian Knot of the Complexities of Funder Mandates, Publisher Embargoes and Researcher Caution in Achieving Open Access," Publications, MDPI, vol. 6(3), pages 1-28, July.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jpubli:v:6:y:2018:i:3:p:31-:d:157758
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2304-6775/6/3/31/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2304-6775/6/3/31/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Jennifer Rowley & Frances Johnson & Laura Sbaffi & Will Frass & Elaine Devine, 2017. "Academics' behaviors and attitudes towards open access publishing in scholarly journals," Journal of the Association for Information Science & Technology, Association for Information Science & Technology, vol. 68(5), pages 1201-1211, May.
    2. Hamid R. Jamali, 2017. "Copyright compliance and infringement in ResearchGate full-text journal articles," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 112(1), pages 241-254, July.
    3. Stephen Pinfield & Jennifer Salter & Peter A. Bath, 2017. "A “Gold-centric” implementation of open access: Hybrid journals, the “Total cost of publication,” and policy development in the UK and beyond," Journal of the Association for Information Science & Technology, Association for Information Science & Technology, vol. 68(9), pages 2248-2263, September.
    4. Bo-Christer Björk & Mikael Laakso & Patrik Welling & Patrik Paetau, 2014. "Anatomy of green open access," Journal of the Association for Information Science & Technology, Association for Information Science & Technology, vol. 65(2), pages 237-250, February.
    5. Diego Ponte & Bozena I. Mierzejewska & Stefan Klein, 2017. "The transformation of the academic publishing market: multiple perspectives on innovation," Electronic Markets, Springer;IIM University of St. Gallen, vol. 27(2), pages 97-100, May.
    6. Mikael Laakso, 2014. "Green open access policies of scholarly journal publishers: a study of what, when, and where self-archiving is allowed," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 99(2), pages 475-494, May.
    7. Vincent Larivière & Stefanie Haustein & Philippe Mongeon, 2015. "The Oligopoly of Academic Publishers in the Digital Era," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 10(6), pages 1-15, June.
    8. Stephen Pinfield & Jennifer Salter & Peter A. Bath, 2016. "The “total cost of publication” in a hybrid open-access environment: Institutional approaches to funding journal article-processing charges in combination with subscriptions," Journal of the Association for Information Science & Technology, Association for Information Science & Technology, vol. 67(7), pages 1751-1766, July.
    9. Jihyun Kim, 2010. "Faculty self-archiving: Motivations and barriers," Journal of the Association for Information Science & Technology, Association for Information Science & Technology, vol. 61(9), pages 1909-1922, September.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Samuel A. Moore, 2023. "The Politics of Rights Retention," Publications, MDPI, vol. 11(2), pages 1-9, May.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Najko Jahn & Lisa Matthias & Mikael Laakso, 2022. "Toward transparency of hybrid open access through publisher‐provided metadata: An article‐level study of Elsevier," Journal of the Association for Information Science & Technology, Association for Information Science & Technology, vol. 73(1), pages 104-118, January.
    2. Oliver Budzinski & Thomas Grebel & Jens Wolling & Xijie Zhang, 2020. "Drivers of article processing charges in open access," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 124(3), pages 2185-2206, September.
    3. Mikael Laakso & Juho Lindman & Cenyu Shen & Linus Nyman & Bo-Christer Björk, 2017. "Research output availability on academic social networks: implications for stakeholders in academic publishing," Electronic Markets, Springer;IIM University of St. Gallen, vol. 27(2), pages 125-133, May.
    4. Bo-Christer Björk, 2017. "Scholarly journal publishing in transition- from restricted to open access," Electronic Markets, Springer;IIM University of St. Gallen, vol. 27(2), pages 101-109, May.
    5. Hajar Sotudeh & Zahra Ghasempour & Maryam Yaghtin, 2015. "The citation advantage of author-pays model: the case of Springer and Elsevier OA journals," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 104(2), pages 581-608, August.
    6. Wrzesinski, Marcel & Riechert, Patrick Urs & Dubois, Frédéric & Katzenbach, Christian, 2021. "Working with publication technology to make open access journals sustainable," EconStor Preprints 231355, ZBW - Leibniz Information Centre for Economics.
    7. Mario Pagliaro, 2021. "Did You Ask for Citations? An Insight into Preprint Citations en route to Open Science," Publications, MDPI, vol. 9(3), pages 1-10, June.
    8. Sergio Copiello, 2020. "Business as Usual with Article Processing Charges in the Transition towards OA Publishing: A Case Study Based on Elsevier," Publications, MDPI, vol. 8(1), pages 1-14, January.
    9. Wenqiang Fan, 2015. "Contribution of the institutional repositories of the Chinese Academy of Sciences to the webometric indicators of their home institutions," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 105(3), pages 1889-1909, December.
    10. Andre Bruns & Niels Taubert, 2021. "Investigating the Blind Spot of a Monitoring System for Article Processing Charges," Publications, MDPI, vol. 9(3), pages 1-9, September.
    11. Yangping Zhou, 2021. "Self-citation and citation of top journal publishers and their interpretation in the journal-discipline context," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 126(7), pages 6013-6040, July.
    12. Sumiko Asai, 2020. "Market power of publishers in setting article processing charges for open access journals," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 123(2), pages 1037-1049, May.
    13. Milan Frederik Klus & Alexander Dilger, 2020. "Success factors of academic journals in the digital age," Business Research, Springer;German Academic Association for Business Research, vol. 13(3), pages 1115-1143, November.
    14. Sumiko Asai, 2021. "Collaboration between research institutes and large and small publishers for publishing open access journals," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 126(6), pages 5245-5262, June.
    15. Sandra Miguel & Ely Francina Tannuri de Oliveira & Maria Cláudia Cabrini Grácio, 2016. "Scientific Production on Open Access: A Worldwide Bibliometric Analysis in the Academic and Scientific Context," Publications, MDPI, vol. 4(1), pages 1-15, January.
    16. María Bordons & Borja González-Albo & Luz Moreno-Solano, 2023. "Improving our understanding of open access: how it relates to funding, internationality of research and scientific leadership," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 128(8), pages 4651-4676, August.
    17. Mikael Laakso & Andrea Polonioli, 2018. "Open access in ethics research: an analysis of open access availability and author self-archiving behaviour in light of journal copyright restrictions," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 116(1), pages 291-317, July.
    18. Mingyang Wang & Jiaqi Zhang & Guangsheng Chen & Kah-Hin Chai, 2019. "Examining the influence of open access on journals’ citation obsolescence by modeling the actual citation process," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 119(3), pages 1621-1641, June.
    19. Niels Taubert & Anne Hobert & Najko Jahn & Andre Bruns & Elham Iravani, 2023. "Understanding differences of the OA uptake within the German university landscape (2010–2020): part 1—journal-based OA," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 128(6), pages 3601-3625, June.
    20. Elizabeth Gadd & Jenny Fry & Claire Creaser, 2018. "The influence of journal publisher characteristics on open access policy trends," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 115(3), pages 1371-1393, June.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:gam:jpubli:v:6:y:2018:i:3:p:31-:d:157758. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.