Advocacy: How to hasten open access : Nature : Nature Publishing Group

"Policies for open-access publishing have made rapid progress, raising a pressing issue — if the research literature is to become completely open within the next 5 years, different policies must be aligned. For researchers who are funded by more than one source, this harmonization is crucial in creating a single, simple path to making their work open access, affordably and sustainably. Funders, universities, nations and states need to work together now to secure good open-access policy. What does that look like? It is clear, accurate and focused. It supports new models for research communication. It does not let copyright become a hurdle and does not interfere with authors' choice of journals. It mandates immediate access. It does not perpetuate a broken market, but finds ways to curb costs.  Good policy doesn't refer to 'gold' open access as 'author pays' or 'paid for', because 66% of open-access journals do not charge. It uses the proper definition: journals that make their content immediately and freely available on the Internet. It doesn't call 'green' open access 'embargoed access', because 60% of the time it is not. It defines it as literature that is made open access directly by the author, usually through a repository. It doesn't assume that green open access harms publishers, because evidence shows that it does not.  Good policy exploits the fact that gold and green routes can both provide articles with licences that maximize re-use (see page 440). It introduces measures of compliance — and sanctions for non-compliance — because these shape behaviour. It embraces the fact that open access will cause disruptive change. And it puts the interests of research, and of the public that pays for it, before all others.  Specifically, funders and universities must work together to align policy with respect to permissible embargoes, timing of repository deposits for green open access and whether research grants can be used to buy gold open access. They must consider whether payments can be made to 'hybrid' journals (subscription journals that make articles open access for a fee) and the position that funders take on rights, licensing requirements and which repositories can be used.  The European Commission (EC) has been explicit about its intentions on these details. From January 2014, it will require articles to be placed in institutional repositories immediately upon publication or acceptance. It permits only a six-month embargo in disciplines within science, technology, engineering and medicine, and a 12-month embargo in the humanities and social sciences. The policy encourages authors to retain copyright and to give publishers licences to publish their work, and it allows grant funds to be used for publishing charges. The EC has stated its hope that European countries will develop open-access policies in line with its own.  State-level policy proposals in the United States align with proposed federal policy in terms of permitted embargo times (the maximum is 12 months). In Belgium and Ireland, funder and university policies are aligning their focus on deposits in repositories, requiring this for research assessment and echoing the EC's maximum permitted embargo times. In Spain, Norway and Denmark, policies that align with that of the EC are already in place. The two Australian funders' policies are similar, calling for deposit in repositories and differing only slightly on permitted embargoes.  So, harmonization is happening. But the development of seamless policies among funders needs to be the focus of advocacy. It will mean less author confusion and greater compliance. Authors will begin to understand the potential of truly open research and be inspired to devise further innovative practices. Then we can expect true disruption: a very different kind of scholarly communication, catalysed by good policy."