Policy Design and Implementation Monitoring for Open Access | PLOS Opens

abernard102@gmail.com 2014-09-04

Summary:

"We know that those Open Access policies that work are the ones that have teeth. Both institutional and funder policies work better when tied to reporting requirements. The success of the University of Liege in filling its repository is in large part due to the fact that works not in the repository do not count for annual reviews. Both the NIH and Wellcome policies have seen substantial jumps in the proportion of articles reaching the repository when grantees final payments or ability to apply for new grants was withheld until issues were corrected. The Liege, Wellcome and NIH policies all have something in common. They specify which repository content must go into to count. This makes it straightforward to determine if an article complies with the policy. For various reasons, other policies are less specific about where articles should go. This makes it harder to track policy implementation. The RCUK policy is particularly relevant with the call currently out for evidence to support the implementation review currently being undertaken. However the issues of implementation monitoring are equally relevant to the European Commission Horizon 2020 policy, Australian funder policies and the UK HEFCE policy as well as implementation of the US White House order ..."

Link:

http://blogs.plos.org/opens/2014/09/03/policy-design-and-implementation-monitoring-for-open-access/

From feeds:

Open Access Tracking Project (OATP) » pontika.nancy@gmail.com's bookmarks
Open Access Tracking Project (OATP) » abernard102@gmail.com

Tags:

oa.australia oa.horizon2020 oa.hefce oa.rcuk oa.wellcome oa.obama_directive oa.nih oa.green oa.compliance oa.mandates oa.funders oa.usa oa.uk oa.comment oa.new ru.sparc oa.europe oa.repositories oa.policies

Date tagged:

09/04/2014, 08:27

Date published:

09/04/2014, 07:13