The IPR issues facing self-archiving: key findings of the RoMEO Project

Introduction Inspired by the Open Archives Initiative, the United Kingdom (UK) Joint Information Systems Committee (JISC) established the FAIR (Focus on Access to Institutional Repositories) programme in 2002. One of the programme's objectives was to "explore the challenges associated with disclosure and sharing [of content], including IPR and the role of institutional repositories". To this end, the JISC funded a one-year project called RoMEO (Rights Metadata for Open archiving). RoMEO, which took place between 2002–2003, specifically looked at the self-archiving of academic research papers, and the subsequent disclosure and harvesting of metadata about those papers using the Open Archives Initiative Protocol for Metadata Harvesting (OAI-PMH) by OAI Data and Service Providers [Open Archives Initiative, 2002a]. The RoMEO project aimed to develop simple rights metadata by which academics could protect their research papers in an open-access environment and also to develop a means by which OAI Data and Service Providers could protect their open-access metadata. RoMEO proposed to show how such rights solutions might be disclosed and harvested under OAI-PMH. The RoMEO project was divided into two phases: a data-gathering phase and a development phase. The project team produced a series of six studies based on their work [Gadd, Oppenheim, and Probets, 2003a; 2003b, 2003c, 2003d, 2003e, 2003f]. (In the remainder of this article, these studies will be referred to as RoMEO Studies 1–6). This article aims to provide an overview of all the activities of the RoMEO project and to report on its key findings and recommendations

IPR issues facing open access

The UK JISC-funded RoMEO Project is investigating the IPR issues related to the ‘selfarchiving’ of research papers by academics and the subsequent disclosure and harvesting of metadata about those research papers using the Open Archives Initiative’s Protocol for Metadata Harvesting (OAI-PMH). During the first phase of the project we performed online questionnaire surveys of four key stakeholder groups: academic authors, journal publishers, OAI Data Providers and Service Providers. We have also performed a very interesting analysis of 80 journal publishers’ Author Copyright Agreements. The principle outcomes of the project are, firstly, the development of some simple rights metadata by which academics might protect their research papers in an open access environment, and secondly, a means of protecting the rights in all that freely available metadata that may soon be available

Developing IPR solutions for academic author self-archiving

This paper describes the work of the UK JISC-funded RoMEO (Rights Metadata for open archiving) project. It reports on a survey of 542 academic authors and an analysis of 80 journal publishers’ copyright transfer agreements, and how they have informed the development of some simple rights metadata by which academics can protect their research papers in an open access environment. It also reports on a survey of 22 OAI Data Providers and 13 OAI Service Providers, and how the results have informed the development of a “metadata protection solution” that describes the conditions of use of freely available metadata

Institutional repositories, aggregator services and collection development

Abstract: Institutional repositories are managed collections of the intellectual output of university and other research-based institutions. This report introduces collection development issues from two distinct perspectives. Firstly, it highlights issues that may need to be addressed by institutional repositories as OAI data providers. For example, repositories may need to make decisions on the type, quality and format of content, on submission workflows, rights management, access, sustainability and evaluation. Secondly, the report will consider similar issues from the perspective of third party service providers like ePrints UK that harvest selective metadata from institutional repositories. The concluding section will provide some recommendations on best practice for repositories to support such harvesting.</p

Self-archiving and the Copyright Transfer Agreements of ISI-ranked library and information science journals

A study of Thomson-Scientific ISI ranked Library and Information Science (LIS) journals (n = 52) is reported. The study examined the stances of publishers as expressed in the Copyright Transfer Agreements (CTAs) of the journals toward self-archiving, the practice of depositing digital copies of one\u27s works in an Open Archives Initiative (OAI)-compliant open access repository. Sixty-two percent (32) do not make their CTAs available on the open Web; 38% (20) do. Of the 38% that do make CTAs available, two are open access journals. Of the 62% that do not have a publicly available CTA, 40% are silent about self-archiving. Even among the 20 journal CTAs publicly available there is a high level of ambiguity. Closer examination augmented by publisher policy documents on copyright, self-archiving, and instructions to authors reveals that only five, 10% of the ISI-ranked LIS journals in the study, actually prohibit self-archiving by publisher rule. Copyright is a moving target, but publishers appear to be acknowledging that copyright and open access can co-exist in scholarly journal publishing. The ambivalence of LIS journal publishers provides unique opportunities to members of the community. Authors can self-archive in open access archives. A society-led, global scholarly communication consortium can engage in the strategic building of the LIS information commons. Aggregating OAI-compliant archives and developing disciplinary-specific library services for an LIS commons has the potential to increase the field\u27s research impact and visibility. It may also ameliorate its own scholarly communication and publishing systems and serve as a model for others

Prospects for institutional e-print repositories in the United Kingdom

This study introduces ePrints UK, a project funded as part of the JISC's Focus on Access to Institutional Resources (FAIR) Programme. It first introduces the project and the main features of the FAIR programme as it relates to e-print repositories. Then it provides some general information on open-access principles, institutional repositories and the technical developments that have made their development viable. There follows a review of relevant repositories in the UK and an indication of what impact ePrints UK might have in supporting learning, teaching and research. This is followed by a discussion of perceived impediments to the take-up of institutional repositories, including both practical and cultural issues. A final section investigates the development of ongoing evaluation criteria for the project

Repository management: an emerging profession in the information sector

The first half of the 21st century has seen huge growth in the open access movement with the potential to change the nature of scholarly communication. Higher education institutions in the United Kingdom have established institutional repositories to showcase the research output of their academic staff. The responsibility for leading this work has been taken up by libraries and this has created a new role in the profession; that of repository manager. Traditional library skills and knowledge are required (e.g. cataloguing, digital asset management) but this needs to be supplemented by new skills such as advocacy and knowledge of research methods and funding systems

RoMEO Studies 8: self-archiving: the logic behind the colour-coding used in the Copyright Knowledge Bank

Purpose – The purpose of this research is to show how the self-archiving of journal papers is a major step towards providing open access to research. However, copyright transfer agreements (CTAs) that are signed by an author prior to publication often indicate whether, and in what form, self-archiving is allowed. The SHERPA/RoMEO database enables easy access to publishers' policies in this area and uses a colour-coding scheme to classify publishers according to their self-archiving status. The database is currently being redeveloped and renamed the Copyright Knowledge Bank. However, it will still assign a colour to individual publishers indicating whether pre-prints can be self-archived (yellow), post-prints can be self-archived (blue), both pre-print and post-print can be archived (green) or neither (white). The nature of CTAs means that these decisions are rarely as straightforward as they may seem, and this paper describes the thinking and considerations that were used in assigning these colours in the light of the underlying principles and definitions of open access. Approach – Detailed analysis of a large number of CTAs led to the development of controlled vocabulary of terms which was carefully analysed to determine how these terms equate to the definition and “spirit” of open access. Findings – The paper reports on how conditions outlined by publishers in their CTAs, such as how or where a paper can be self-archived, affect the assignment of a self-archiving colour to the publisher. Value – The colour assignment is widely used by authors and repository administrators in determining whether academic papers can be self-archived. This paper provides a starting-point for further discussion and development of publisher classification in the open access environment