Responses to recent concerns raised by the Publishers' Association about plans to introduce a model open access policy for UK Higher Education Institutions in order to simplify the complex funder and publisher policy environment currently experienced by UK academics.

1. Key Publisher Concerns with the SCL
Publisher Concerns
Steering Group response
SUMMARY
The main concerns publishers have with the SCL is that:‐
1) It would impose a very significant administrative burden on
researchers, their institutions and publishers. Its proponents have
assumed that researchers will not seek waivers. This is a profound
misconception arising from a lack of consultation with publishers.
The PA estimates that waivers would be required for 90,000 –
100,000 journal articles per year, and in many cases multiple waivers
would be required for multiple authors at multiple institutions.
Publication would be delayed while waivers were sought and
granted, delaying publication and affecting the impact of UK
research. Substantial additional costs would be incurred by
institutions and publishers. We have not even begun to estimate the
cost to researchers in their time.
There is a current, significant, burden on researchers, their institutions and
publishers in managing the existing process of understanding the exact terms,
licence choice, embargo period and hence compliance position of each article.
Currently 100% of outputs have to be checked.
The proposed policy is based on the Harvard model which has been in use
since 2008 and has been adopted by over 60 institutions worldwide, including
Ivy League universities whose publishing outputs eclipse the numbers
published in total in the UK. Under the Harvard model policy, waivers are
requested for less than 5% of articles. We are at a loss to understand why,
therefore, the estimate is so high for UK authors and why UK authors might
be treated differently to their counterparts in existing “Harvard policy”
institutions.
2) It conflicts with UK policy on open access, putting green open access
before gold, even where funding is available for gold, and
undermining the sustainability of green by removing any embargo
period. It appears to be based on an assumption that there is no
value in publishers’ management of peer review, their services to
authors and their maintenance of journal brands, as it effectively
assumes that this investment be discounted.
There is no single “UK Policy on open access” under which UK academics are
operating.
Jo Johnson, in his response to Professor Adam Tickell’s advice1
states:
“Research Council policies are not determined by Government, but I know
they are looking carefully at your report”. He also stated “I am also keen that
funder policies are harmonised and simplified as far as possible, so that the
research community is not unduly burdened”.
The UK‐SCL is an interim harmonising measure being put in place by
1
https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/499945/bis‐16‐122‐open‐access‐research‐response.pdf

2. institutions whilst progress is made at the funder level, and whilst the “off‐
setting arrangements and better value … for higher education institutions” is
negotiated at publisher level.
The RCUK policy (which is relevant to a subset of UK authors) has a preference
for gold, and this preference is partly funded, with the present round of
funding due to end by April 2018.
However, in para 8.10 of the Finch report we find:
Nevertheless, the transition across the world is likely to take a number of
years. During that period, all three of our mechanisms – licensing and
repositories as well as open access and hybrid journals ‐ will remain in play.
Measures to increase access will therefore have to include the more
effective use of all three; and it is important that progress on all fronts
should be carefully monitored.
The REF policy, which is scheduled to cover all UK HE outputs that might be
submitted to the REF, is open to either the green or gold routes, with no
preference between them.
We observe numerous reports linking the availability of an open access copy
of an output to increased citation levels, e.g.
https://www.timeshighereducation.com/news/openaccessboostscitationsfift
h, and an earlier collection of evidence via this:
http://opcit.eprints.org/oacitation‐biblio.html
Although not directly equivalent it is nonetheless relevant, pre‐print
repository deposit of the type offered through arXiv similarly supports a
mutually symbiotic relationship between green OA and publishing. Here
again, the evidence demonstrates clear citation advantages where there is
also a green OA version available.

3.
Publisher embargo periods vary. We observe a growing number of publishers
which already operate a zero month embargo for some or all of their journals,
including:
IEEE
SAGE
CUP
Elsevier
American Physical Society
AIP Publishing
EDP Sciences
Taylor and Francis
London Mathematical Society
Company of Biologists
The Royal Society
OUP
Association for Computing
Machinery
American Psychological
Association
American Diabetes Association
SPIE
IET Journals
BMJ Journals
AAAS (Science)
3) It seeks immediate non‐commercial re‐use rights for all UK research
outputs, again undermining the ability of publishers to earn back
their investment in editorial services and journal development.
We are puzzled at the assertion that non‐commercial re‐use rights might
threaten commercial rights.
The retention of non‐commercial rights by the institution allows the publisher
to earn back their investment in the publishing process while also allowing
taxpayers to the access the research their taxes have funded.
4) It potentially limits the choice of researchers in where they publish
their research, again affecting the impact of UK science.
The UK‐SCL has been drawn up so as to preserve the academic freedom to
publish in the journal of their choice
It only limits the choice of researchers if publishers insist on imposing
conditions which force academics to ask for waivers and that such waivers are
not given (meaning the researcher must choose a different journal). The
publisher, and not the UK‐SCL would be limiting the choice of the researcher.

4. Waivers
Publishers would have no choice but to require authors to obtain waivers
from the SCL. It is estimated that around 120,000 – 140,000 journal
articles are published by UK corresponding authors each year. If we
assume that 25% of these are published on gold open access basis or do
not otherwise require a waiver; that leaves potentially 90,000 – 100,000
requiring waivers. The chart below shows the share of UK‐authored
articles published by PA member publishers in 2015 and therefore the
scale of the likely impact on UK research published by a broad range of
publishers.
Publishers do have a choice. For the 60 plus institutions which have already
implemented the Harvard model policy, on which the UK‐SCL is based,
publishers exercise that choice in <5% of articles.
As noted above, there are a growing number of publishers, including PA
member publishers, operating a zero month embargo.
UK Academics will need to understand why there is a proposal to treat their
outputs differently to those of their counterparts in institutions in the other
countries which have implemented the Harvard model policy.
.
The cost of administering such a large number of waivers, multiplied in
many cases by the need for multiple authors at multiple institutions to
These costs would only be incurred should publishers seek to treat UK authors
differently from their counterparts in institutions which have already
Comment [CB1]: There are 12
segments in the pie and only 11 on the
legend. What is the makeup of the 38%>

5. seek such waivers, would be enormous, for institutions, for publishers
and, in time expended on the task, for researchers. We estimate that
this would dwarf the costs incurred at present for manuscript deposit in
repositories, which were estimated to be £4‐5 million per annum in a
2014 report (Counting the Costs of Open Access,
http://www.ariessys.com/wp‐content/uploads/Research‐Consulting‐
Counting‐the‐Costs‐of‐OA‐Final.pdf) and with the implementation of the
HEFCE REF policy have almost certainly increased substantially since
then. This runs counter to the sector’s focus on efficiency, championed
for example by the UUK Open Access Coordination Group.
implemented the Harvard model policy.
Currently the inefficiency in the system in the UK is in part because of the
differing policies implemented by government and other organisations (RCUK
/ REF / Wellcome et al) combined with the many and varied publisher policies,
some of which differ depending on the funding status of the academic. The
UK‐SCL considerably increases efficiency by reducing the need for each and
every article to be checked both for funder policy and for REF eligibility. In a
single clear and unambiguous action authors can comply with their funder
and can have their research eligible for inclusion in the REF. Since the Stern
report has proposed that the research of all academics with significant
responsibility for research should be entered into the REF, this is of
importance to each and every research academic at each institution in the UK.
Furthermore, while the SCL notes the ability of an institution to grant a
waiver, it places no obligation on the institution to grant one. This would
introduce further uncertainty for authors (and their publishers) and
potentially limit their publishing options. This is in stark contrast to the
Harvard model licence, which the SCL proponents claim as a model for
theirs, which stipulates that waivers will be granted on request of the
author. The Harvard licence notes this is ‘important for the palatability of
the policy’ and alleviates concerns around freedom to accommodate
publisher policies. The SCL also currently differs from the Harvard model
in that the waiver, if granted, would only last for two years; under the
Harvard model the waiver is granted indefinitely.
It will be for UK institutions and their authors to determine whether a waiver
is appropriate. Should a waiver result in an output being ineligible for the REF
or being in contravention of their funder policy (e.g. because of the period
requested), then this discussion between institution and author will be crucial
before granting any waiver. The implications of the waiver will need to be fully
understood by the academic and their institution.
The length of the waiver is intended to support academics in eligibility of their
research for the REF.
The SCL also makes no attempt to take into account policies in countries
other than the UK where, for example, such mandates may not be
imposed on researchers. This would add further to the burden on
researchers in complying with such a licence.
Researchers already face a burden with co‐authors in other countries as a
result of the funder/REF mandates. It would not add further to the burden,
merely alter slightly the discussion that already needs to be had between co‐
authors in different funding jurisdictions.
UK policy and embargo periods for green open access
The SCL rides roughshod over the Finch recommendations and UK
government policy on open access. UK policy expresses a strong
There is no single government policy on open access.
From the RCUK policy; “The choice of route to Open Access remains with the

6. preference for gold and RCUK has made substantial funding available for
this, yet even where funding is available the SCL proponents appear to
favour green. UK policy also recognises that where funding is not
available for gold open access then green open access must be based on
reasonable embargo periods to enable publishers to earn back their
investment in author services, peer review and journal development and
management. The SCL makes the default position one of no embargo
whatsoever; rather, immediate access to the Accepted Manuscript under
a CC‐BY‐NC licence which would enable immediate non‐commercial re‐
use.
researchers and their research organisations and, where funding for APCs is
unavailable during the transition period, longer embargo periods will be
allowable” This clearly leaves the choice with the researcher and their HEI.
Importantly, it does not say that where funding exists that green is not
permitted.
The RCUK policy is applicable only to a subset of research at UK HEIs. It is a
partly funded gold OA policy, intended to support a transition to gold OA. The
current period of funding comes to an end in March 2018 and as yet there is
no clarity on whether further funding will be made available to support the
policy. Moreover, the RCUK policy can only work if other funders take a
similar approach. Sadly this appears not to be the case and we understand
that this both makes it challenging for publishers to affect the transition to
gold, and for research intensive institutions to fund that transition.
Agreement at inter‐governmental level would be required in order to truly
achieve the transition envisaged by the Finch group. Whilst it is acknowledged
that there may be enough money in the system to support wholesale pure
gold, this money is distributed across continents and a re‐balancing of funding
within and across the UK would not, alone, support the transition to gold OA
for UK authored outputs.
The REF policy, on the other hand, is applicable to all researchers at UK HEIs
who are to be entered for the REF. Moreover, section 36 of the main policy
includes this statement:
However, where an HEI can demonstrate that outputs are presented in a
form that allows re‐use of the work, including via text‐mining, credit will
be given in the research environment component of the post‐2014 REF.
We further recommend that institutions fully consider the extent to
which they currently retain or transfer the copyright of works published
by their researchers, as part of creating a healthy research environment.
This statement has perhaps been overlooked by the publishers? It is the

7. statement which, following further discussion with HEFCE, has specifically
influenced the development of the UK‐SCL.
[Continued from above] “UK proponents prefer green”: whilst this may be the perception of some
members of the PA/ALPSP, it reflects the following circumstances:
 The RCUK funding received by institutions has been time limited (5 years)
and has not yet reached the stage where it is sufficient to support gold OA
for all relevant outputs. Institutions needed to develop parallel green
services in order to pick up the slack in funding
 The REF policy is a green policy and applies to all academics.
 There is no certainty whatsoever that RCUK/UKRI will continue to allocate
funding to institutions, particularly given that other funding agencies,
including HEFCE in the UK, have not followed suit in preferring and
supporting gold OA
Publishers have made great efforts to support the Government’s pro‐
gold policy and the UK has seen large growth in the open access
publication of its researchers’ outputs. This is not the moment to seek to
undermine that policy. Publishers also understand the preference of
HEFCE and many individual institutions for green open access in relation
to the REF and are generally able to work with the one‐year embargo
that it requires.
As stated above, there is no government pro‐gold policy. The RCUK policy and
the REF policies differ whilst both emanate from the same parent government
department.
The UK‐SCL model policy introduction is explicit about its intentions and
contains the following statements:
The licence is seen as an interim solutioni
to help authors make their
outputs available as open access and meet funder requirements until
sustainable open access publishing models emerge.
CC‐BY‐NC licence
Many publishers are also concerned about the insistence on a CC‐BY‐NC
licence. Non‐commercial re‐use and the production of derivatives can
have a significant impact on publishers’ ability to recoup their
investment in journals publishing. For example, existing agreements
between publishers and aggregation services are often exclusive; how
can these possibly work under the proposed SCL with no embargo
period?
Existing agreements vary between complete assignment of copyright and
right to first publish. Those with a “right to first publish” agreement clearly
nonetheless have sustainable publishing models.
Similarly, some publishers already operate a zero month embargo period with
a NC licence.
Given that both these scenarios are already at work it is unclear to us why,

8. under the UK‐SCL they might now become unworkable.
Protecting author rights
Current Government policy on open access, and that of individual HEIs,
respects the ability of UK researchers to choose the best venue for
publication of their research available to them. Without the clear right to
be granted a waiver from the SCL, UK researchers would no longer be
sure of that freedom to publish where they will get the greatest impact
for their research. The proposed CC‐BY‐NC licence removes a further
author right, to choose the licence under which to publish on a
subscription basis.
In order to take action against copyright infringement and violation of
their authors rights, publishers need clear and exclusive publishing
rights. Under the SCL any action would need to be taken jointly between
the publisher and the author’s institution, which is simply unworkable.
As stated above, academics will retain the freedom to publish in the journal of
their choice. That an automatic waiver will not be granted is intended as a
safety net for the academic to ensure that the consequences of that choice
are clearly understood, including compliance with funder requirements,
eligibility for inclusion of their work in the REF, and the ability to retain re‐use
rights for teaching and for wider scholarly communication as specifically
encouraged by the REF policy.
The UK‐SCL has been drawn up to aid legal scholarly use and sharing of
outputs. It is for that reason that the licence includes NC. We observe that
the ability of publishers to take action against infringement is already severely
compromised through commercial sharing (e.g. ResearchGate) and
widespread illegal sharing (e.g. SciHub). Author accepted manuscripts are
already being shared in repositories and the Non‐Commercial aspect of the
licence has been retained.
Finally, it should be noted that under UK law, the employer is the first owner
of any copyright in work created “in the course of employment”. In discussing
options for streamlining OA services for academics we did include an option
where the institution manages publishing agreements on behalf of academics
so as to ensure the retention of re‐use rights. Both academics and their
institutions recognised that this would be more disruptive to the publishing
process than might be necessary, particularly given the fact that the Harvard
model policy, in widespread use since 2008, met these needs.
6th
June 2017
30 June 2017
i
interim solution: It remains to be seen how long this policy will remain necessary or appropriate. It may evolve over time following periodic review. For example, under a pure
open access publishing model the policy would no longer be necessary.