Responses from the UK-SCL Steering Group to a second letter from the Publishers' Association about a revision of the UK-SCL model policy which took into account concerns that publishers had raised with us. The first letter is here: https://www.slideshare.net/chrisabanks/scholarly-communications-model-policy-and-licence-publishers-association-concerns-together-with-ukscl-steering-group-responses

1. Response​ ​from​ ​the​ ​UK-SCL​ ​Steering​ ​Group​ ​to​ ​PA​ ​comments​ ​on​ ​the​ ​22.ix.2017​ ​version
of​ ​the​ ​model​ ​policy
October​ ​12,​ ​2017.
PA​ ​text Policy​ ​statements SG​ ​response
A​ ​reminder​ ​of​ ​the​ ​key​ ​aims​ ​of​ ​the​ ​UK-SCL​ ​and
model​ ​policy:
● To​ ​facilitate​ ​the​ ​retention​ ​of​ ​re-use​ ​rights​ ​​as
encouraged​ ​by​ ​funders​ ​of​ ​UK​ ​research
● To​ ​provide​ ​a​ ​one-step​ ​action​ ​by​ ​which
researchers​ ​can​ ​both​ ​comply​ ​with​ ​multiple
funder​ ​policies​ ​​and​​ ​remain​ ​eligible​ ​for​ ​the​ ​REF
and​​ ​go​ ​beyond​ ​funder​ ​minimum​ ​compliance
(e.g.​ ​HEFCE,​ ​see​ ​below).​ ​Particularly:
o CC-BY-NC:​ ​=​ ​RCUK​ ​compliant​ ​and
above​ ​the​ ​minimum​ ​compliance​ ​for
REF​ ​eligibility
o Zero​ ​month​ ​embargo​ ​default​ ​(earlier
if​ ​publisher​ ​policies​ ​allow):​ ​in​ ​line
with​ ​institutions​ ​that​ ​have​ ​adopted
the​ ​Harvard​ ​model​ ​since​ ​2008
o Automatic​ ​granting​ ​of​ ​a​ ​waiver​ ​with
6/12​ ​month​ ​embargo​ ​for​ ​those
publishers​ ​requesting​ ​it:
● compliant​ ​with​ ​RCUK,
Horizon​ ​2020​ ​etc
● Above​ ​REF​ ​OA​ ​minimum
eligibility
● Allows​ ​for​ ​accidental​ ​12
month​ ​waiver​ ​granting​ ​of
an​ ​output​ ​which​ ​might
subsequently​ ​be​ ​allocated
to​ ​a​ ​Science​ ​Panel​ ​(=​ ​6
month)​ ​embargo,​ ​and
consequently​ ​ensures​ ​all
outputs​ ​deposited​ ​under
the​ ​terms​ ​of​ ​the​ ​model
1​ ​|​ ​​Page

2. policy​ ​are​ ​eligible​ ​for
inclusion​ ​in​ ​REF2021.
HEFCE​ ​issued​ ​a​ ​revision​ ​to​ ​its​ ​REF​ ​​FAQ​ ​document​​ ​–​ ​specifically​ ​to
section​ ​7.​ ​That​ ​FAQ​ ​contains​ ​the​ ​following​ ​statement:
Section​ ​2​ ​of​ ​the​ ​​RCUK​ ​policy​​ ​contains​ ​this​ ​statement​ ​on​ ​green.
The​ ​earlier​ ​version​ ​of​ ​the​ ​policy,​ ​with​ ​the​ ​provision
on​ ​an​ ​article​ ​by​ ​article​ ​basis​ ​to​ ​allow​ ​for​ ​a
discretionary​ ​waiver​ ​up​ ​to​ ​24​ ​months​ ​was​ ​drawn​ ​up
on​ ​the​ ​basis​ ​of​ ​the​ ​level​ ​of​ ​waiver​ ​claims
experienced​ ​by​ ​those​ ​who​ ​have​ ​implemented​ ​the
Harvard​ ​model​ ​policy​ ​-​ ​<5%.​ ​PA​ ​members​ ​have
indicated​ ​that​ ​in​ ​the​ ​UK​ ​publishers​ ​will​ ​request
waivers​ ​on​ ​a​ ​much​ ​greater​ ​scale.​ ​Whilst​ ​we​ ​still​ ​do
not​ ​yet​ ​comprehend​ ​why​ ​UK​ ​authors​ ​would​ ​be
treated​ ​differently,​ ​we​ ​felt​ ​it​ ​necessary​ ​to​ ​respond.
In​ ​offering​ ​a​ ​blanket​ ​waiver​ ​to​ ​publishers​ ​–
something​ ​that​ ​can​ ​be​ ​agreed​ ​on​ ​behalf​ ​of​ ​all
institutions​ ​adopting​ ​the​ ​UK-SCL​ ​–​ ​we​ ​can​ ​eliminate
the​ ​need​ ​for​ ​article​ ​by​ ​article​ ​waiver​ ​claiming​ ​for
both​ ​publisher​ ​and​ ​institution.​ ​For​ ​the​ ​reasons
stated​ ​above,​ ​only​ ​​ ​6/12​ ​month​ ​embargoes​ ​would
ensure​ ​that​ ​all​ ​outputs​ ​were​ ​eligible​ ​for​ ​inclusion​ ​in
REF2021,​ ​and​ ​would​ ​be​ ​compliant​ ​with​ ​not​ ​only
RCUK,​ ​but​ ​other​ ​funders​ ​including​ ​Horizon2020
We​ ​note​ ​that​ ​under​ ​the​ ​RCUK​ ​policy,​ ​where​ ​funding
is​ ​not​ ​available​ ​to​ ​academics​ ​the​ ​maximum
embargo​ ​periods​ ​are​ ​already​ ​6/12​ ​months​ ​–
something​ ​that​ ​was​ ​agreed​ ​with​ ​publishers​ ​during
the​ ​Finch-led​ ​discussions.
The​ ​longer​ ​than​ ​6/12​ ​month​ ​embargo​ ​periods
allowed​ ​by​ ​RCUK​ ​was​ ​for​ ​a​ ​transition​ ​period​ ​only
and​ ​in​ ​section​ ​3.10​ ​the​ ​policy​ ​notes​ ​that​ ​the
transition​ ​“may​ ​be​ ​around​ ​five​ ​years​ ​in​ ​duration”.
We​ ​are​ ​well​ ​into​ ​the​ ​fifth​ ​year​ ​of​ ​the​ ​RCUK​ ​policy​ ​.
Many​ ​other​ ​​funders​​ ​already​ ​have​ ​6/12​ ​month
minimum​ ​requirements​ ​so,​ ​again,​ ​we​ ​are​ ​unsure​ ​as
to​ ​why,​ ​for​ ​UK​ ​funded​ ​authors,​ ​some​ ​publishers​ ​are
insistent​ ​on​ ​stretching​ ​embargo​ ​periods​ ​to​ ​the
absolute​ ​maxima​ ​​ ​allowed​ ​by​ ​some​ ​funders​ ​of​ ​some
research.​ ​Publishers​ ​are​ ​already​ ​working​ ​with​ ​6/12
month​ ​embargoes​ ​for​ ​some​ ​funded​ ​research,​ ​a
growing​ ​number​ ​of​ ​publishers​ ​have​ ​reduced
embargo​ ​periods.
2​ ​|​ ​​Page

3. For​ ​the​ ​REF​ ​2021​ ​OA​ ​policy​ ​–​ ​see​ ​above.
On​ ​this​ ​page​ ​of​ ​the​ ​RCUK​ ​FAQs​ ​updated​ ​September​ ​2017
http://www.rcuk.ac.uk/documents/documents/openaccessfaqsv2-pd
f/
2.1​ ​Do​ ​researchers​ ​have​ ​the​ ​freedom​ ​to​ ​choose​ ​the​ ​green​ ​route
even​ ​if​ ​the​ ​publisher​ ​offers​ ​a​ ​‘gold’​ ​route?
UPDATED​ ​Yes:​ ​although​ ​the​ ​Research​ ​Councils’​ ​preference​ ​is​ ​for
immediate​ ​unrestricted​ ​open​ ​access​ ​(‘Gold’),​ ​they​ ​support​ ​a​ ​mixed
approach​ ​to​ ​Open​ ​Access,​ ​and​ ​​the​ ​decision​ ​on​ ​which​ ​route​ ​to​ ​follow
remains​ ​at​ ​the​ ​discretion​ ​of​ ​the​ ​researchers​ ​and​ ​their​ ​research
organisations​.
Where​ ​publishers​ ​offer​ ​a​ ​Gold​ ​Route,​ ​but​ ​the​ ​researcher​ ​chooses
green,​ ​papers​ ​should​ ​be​ ​published​ ​in​ ​a​ ​journal​ ​with​ ​a​ ​​maximum
embargo​ ​of​ ​12​ ​months​ ​for​ ​STEM​ ​funded​ ​disciplines,​ ​or​ ​24​ ​months​ ​in
the​ ​arts,​ ​humanities​ ​and​ ​social​ ​sciences​ ​funded​ ​research.
Research​ ​papers​ ​in​ ​biomedicine​ ​should​ ​be​ ​published​ ​with​ ​an
embargo​ ​of​ ​no​ ​longer​ ​than​ ​six​ ​months​,​ ​as​ ​has​ ​been​ ​the​ ​MRC’s
mandated​ ​policy​ ​since​ ​2006.
3.9​ ​One​ ​of​ ​our​ ​researchers​ ​has​ ​recently​ ​published​ ​in​ ​a​ ​journal​ ​that
offers​ ​the​ ​gold​ ​route​ ​but​ ​the​ ​author​ ​did​ ​not​ ​choose​ ​that​ ​before
publication​ ​and​ ​therefore​ ​the​ ​article​ ​does​ ​not​ ​comply​ ​with​ ​RCUK
open​ ​access​ ​policy.​ ​Can​ ​we​ ​use​ ​funding​ ​from​ ​the​ ​RCUK​ ​open​ ​access
block​ ​grant​ ​to​ ​make​ ​the​ ​article​ ​open​ ​access?​
NEW​ ​The​ ​decision​ ​as​ ​to​ ​when​ ​this​ ​is​ ​a​ ​good​ ​use​ ​of​ ​the​ ​RCUK​ ​open
access​ ​block​ ​grant​ ​lies​ ​with​ ​the​ ​research​ ​organisation.​ ​It​ ​should
always​ ​be​ ​the​ ​priority​ ​to​ ​make​ ​new​ ​articles​ ​open​ ​access,​ ​but​ ​where​ ​a
research​ ​organisation​ ​has​ ​funds​ ​remaining,​ ​they​ ​may​ ​decide​ ​to​ ​make
a​ ​recently​ ​published​ ​article​ ​compliant​ ​with​ ​the​ ​RCUK​ ​policy.​ ​However,
where​ ​the​ ​article​ ​concerned​ ​has​ ​not​ ​been​ ​recently​ ​published,​ ​then
the​ ​research​ ​organisation​ ​should​ ​consider​ ​the​ ​allowable​ ​embargo
periods​ ​for​ ​the​ ​‘Green’​ ​route​ ​(​ ​6​ ​months​ ​for​ ​STEM​ ​funded​ ​disciplines
and​ ​12​ ​months​ ​for​ ​arts,​ ​humanities​ ​and​ ​social​ ​sciences​ ​funded
research),​​ ​and​ ​if​ ​the​ ​length​ ​of​ ​time​ ​from​ ​when​ ​the​ ​article​ ​was​ ​first
published,​ ​to​ ​when​ ​it​ ​is​ ​being​ ​made​ ​publicly​ ​accessible​ ​exceeds​ ​the
embargo​ ​period,​ ​then​ ​the​ ​article​ ​would​ ​not​ ​be​ ​compliant​ ​with​ ​the
RCUK​ ​open​ ​access​ ​policy​ ​and​ ​open​ ​access​ ​block​ ​funding​ ​must​ ​not​ ​be
used​ ​to​ ​make​ ​such​ ​outputs​ ​open​ ​access.
Embargo​ ​periods
5.1​ ​If​ ​an​ ​article​ ​is​ ​based​ ​on​ ​work​ ​funded​ ​by​ ​MRC,​ ​AHRC​ ​and​ ​ESRC,
what​ ​embargo​ ​period​ ​applies?
In​ ​saying​ ​that​ ​“the​ ​majority​ ​of​ ​PA​ ​members​ ​work​ ​to
the​ ​HEFCE​ ​and​ ​RCUK​ ​policies”​ ​what​ ​you​ ​are​ ​in​ ​fact
stating​ ​is​ ​that​ ​​those​ ​publishers​ ​work​ ​to​ ​the
minimum​ ​compliance​ ​for​ ​those​ ​policies​ ​by
choosing​ ​the​ ​maximum​ ​allowable​ ​embargo
periods.​​ ​Both​ ​RCUK​ ​and​ ​HEFCE​ ​have​ ​minimum
compliance​ ​terms​ ​and​ ​encourage​ ​authors​ ​and
institutions​ ​to​ ​go​ ​beyond​ ​those​ ​minima.​ ​​ ​RCUK​ ​is
quite​ ​clear​ ​on​ ​the​ ​transition​ ​period.
The​ ​UK-SCL​ ​offer​ ​of​ ​a​ ​6/12​ ​month​ ​waiver​ ​achieves
both​ ​the​ ​aims​ ​of​ ​the​ ​policy​ ​–​ ​single​ ​step​ ​eligibility
and​ ​compliance​ ​–​ ​and​ ​achieves​ ​the​ ​institution​ ​aim
of​ ​moving​ ​away​ ​from​ ​the​ ​minima​ ​set​ ​by​ ​the
funders.​ ​In​ ​this​ ​sense,​ ​the​ ​UK-SCL​ ​​does​​ ​harmonise
with​ ​UK​ ​funder​ ​policies.​ ​It​ ​also​ ​eliminates​ ​the
confusion​ ​caused​ ​by,​ ​especially,​ ​those​ ​publisher
policies​ ​which​ ​vary​ ​depending​ ​on​ ​the​ ​source​ ​of
funding​ ​that​ ​the​ ​researcher​ ​receives​ ​–​ ​in​ ​other
words​ ​those​ ​policies​ ​that​ ​already​ ​allow​ ​for​ ​6/12
months​ ​where​ ​the​ ​author​ ​is​ ​not​ ​funded,​ ​but​ ​insist
on​ ​12/24​ ​where​ ​funding​ ​might​ ​be​ ​available​ ​at​ ​the
institution.
3​ ​|​ ​​Page

4. In​ ​circumstances​ ​where​ ​research​ ​is​ ​funded​ ​by​ ​more​ ​than​ ​one​ ​funder,
including​ ​multiple​ ​Research​ ​Councils,​ ​the​ ​shortest​ ​embargo​ ​period
will​ ​apply,​​ ​as​ ​otherwise​ ​Terms​ ​and​ ​Conditions​ ​attached​ ​to​ ​part​ ​of​ ​the
funding​ ​would​ ​be​ ​breached.​ ​RCUK​ ​funded​ ​researchers​ ​should​ ​ensure
that​ ​collaborators​ ​are​ ​aware​ ​of​ ​all​ ​the​ ​terms​ ​and​ ​conditions​ ​of​ ​their
funders​ ​as​ ​early​ ​as​ ​possible,​ ​and​ ​that​ ​relevant​ ​wording​ ​stating​ ​the
obligation​ ​to​ ​publish​ ​results​ ​in​ ​Open​ ​Access​ ​is​ ​included​ ​in
collaboration​ ​agreements.​ ​As​ ​part​ ​of​ ​future​ ​review​ ​of​ ​the​ ​policy,​ ​the
Research​ ​Councils​ ​will​ ​consider​ ​how​ ​maximum​ ​embargo​ ​periods​ ​can
be​ ​further​ ​harmonised.
Where​ ​publishers​ ​offer​ ​a​ ​Gold​ ​Route,​ ​but​ ​the​ ​researcher​ ​chooses
green,​ ​papers​ ​should​ ​be​ ​published​ ​in​ ​a​ ​journal​ ​with​ ​a​ ​​maximum
embargo​ ​of​ ​12​ ​months​ ​for​ ​STEM​ ​funded​ ​disciplines,​ ​or​ ​24​ ​months​ ​in
the​ ​arts,​ ​humanities​ ​and​ ​social​ ​sciences​ ​funded​ ​research.
Yes,​ ​the​ ​RCUK​ ​policy​ ​supports​ ​a​ ​maximum​ ​of​ ​12/24
months​ ​​during​ ​the​ ​transition​ ​period​​ ​but​ ​also
encourages​ ​institutions​ ​to​ ​go​ ​beyond​ ​that.​ ​​ ​The
UK-SCL​ ​achieves​ ​that.
A​ ​reminder​ ​of​ ​the​ ​REF​ ​statement:
And​ ​the​ ​RCUK​ ​statement​ ​on​ ​licenses​ ​from​ ​​this​ ​document​:
6.2​ ​What​ ​licenses​ ​are​ ​compliant​ ​with​ ​the​ ​RCUK​ ​OA​ ​policy?​ ​​UPDATED
i)​ ​Gold​ ​-​ ​(immediate​ ​open​ ​access):​ ​​ ​Where​ ​an​ ​APC​ ​is​ ​paid,​ ​it​ ​is​ ​a
requirement​ ​that​ ​the​ ​licence​ ​applied​ ​is​ ​CC-BY
ii)​ ​Green​ ​-​ ​(deposit​ ​of​ ​the​ ​final​ ​accepted​ ​manuscript​ ​in​ ​a​ ​repository,
usually​ ​with​ ​an​ ​embargo):​ ​The​ ​RCUK​ ​preference​ ​is​ ​for​ ​CC-BY,
however,​ ​the​ ​formal​ ​requirement​ ​is​ ​that​ ​the​ ​licence​ ​places​ ​no
restriction​ ​on​ ​non-commercial​ ​reuse,​ ​including​ ​non-commercial​ ​text-
and​ ​data-mining.​ ​The​ ​licence​ ​should​ ​also​ ​allow​ ​for​ ​the​ ​sharing​ ​of
adaptations​ ​of​ ​the​ ​material.​ ​This​ ​means​ ​a​ ​CC-BY-NC​ ​licence,​ ​or
equivalent​ ​is​ ​acceptable​.​ ​​A​ ​CC-BY-NC-ND​ ​licence​ ​is​ ​not​ ​compliant.
HEFCE​ ​also​ ​encourages​ ​institutions​ ​to​ ​go​ ​beyond
the​ ​minimum.​ ​The​ ​UK-SCL​ ​achieves​ ​that​ ​whilst
preserving​ ​the​ ​NC​ ​element​ ​that​ ​was​ ​of​ ​concern​ ​to
the​ ​publishers.
RCUK​ ​notes​ ​its​ ​preference​ ​for​ ​gold​ ​but​ ​allows​ ​the
academic/institution​ ​to​ ​choose​ ​the​ ​green​ ​route.
The​ ​FAQ​ ​is​ ​absolutely​ ​clear​ ​that​ ​a​ ​ND​ ​licence​ ​is​ ​not
compliant,​ ​as​ ​highlighted.
4​ ​|​ ​​Page

5. CC-BY-NC​ ​allows​ ​a​ ​greater​ ​degree​ ​of​ ​TDM​ ​beyond
academe,​ ​which​ ​is​ ​what​ ​funders​ ​and​ ​researchers
wish​ ​to​ ​see​ ​enabled,​ ​including​ ​beyond​ ​the​ ​UK.
For​ ​publishers​ ​wishing​ ​to​ ​claim​ ​blanket​ ​waivers,​ ​we
would​ ​wish​ ​to​ ​reach​ ​a​ ​single​ ​agreement​ ​on​ ​behalf
of​ ​all​ ​institutions​ ​adopting​ ​the​ ​UK-SCL.
The​ ​Steering​ ​Group​ ​welcomes​ ​the​ ​fact​ ​that
publishers​ ​now​ ​feel​ ​they​ ​can​ ​work​ ​with​ ​us.​ ​We
would​ ​ask​ ​them​ ​to​ ​support​ ​the​ ​academics​ ​by​ ​not
instituting​ ​article​ ​by​ ​article​ ​waiver​ ​requests​ ​–
something​ ​that​ ​would​ ​be​ ​costly​ ​to​ ​both​ ​publishers
and​ ​unwelcomed​ ​by​ ​individual​ ​academics​ ​and​ ​their
institutions​ ​–​ ​but​ ​instead​ ​work​ ​with​ ​us​ ​to
implement​ ​not​ ​simply​ ​the​ ​funder​ ​minima​ ​but​ ​also,
as​ ​the​ ​UK-SCL​ ​seeks​ ​to​ ​do,​ ​to​ ​accept​ ​the​ ​stretch
challenge​ ​by​ ​funders​ ​that​ ​institutions​ ​are​ ​seeking​ ​to
rise​ ​to​ ​and​ ​many​ ​publishers​ ​are​ ​responding​ ​to.
5​ ​|​ ​​Page