3 research outputs found
RoMEO Studies 8: self-archiving: the logic behind the colour-coding used in the Copyright Knowledge Bank
Purpose â 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 â 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 âspiritâ of open access.
Findings â 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 â 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
RoMEO studies 7: creation of a controlled vocabulary to analyse copyright transfer agreements
This paper describes the process of creating a controlled vocabulary which can be used to systematically analyse the copyright transfer agreements (CTAs) of journal publishers with regard to self-archiving. The analysis formed the basis of the newly created Copyright Knowledge Bank of publishersâ self-archiving policies. Self-archiving terms appearing in publishersâ CTAs were identified and classified, with these then being simplified, merged, and discarded to form a definitive list. The controlled vocabulary consists of three categories that describe âwhatâ can be self-archived, the âconditionsâ of self-archiving and the ârestrictionsâ of self-archiving. Condition terms include specifications such as âwhereâ an article can be self archived, restriction terms include specifications such as âwhenâ the article can be self archived. Additional information on any of these terms appears in âfree-textâ fields. Although this controlled vocabulary provides an effective way of analysing CTAs, it will need to be continually reviewed and updated in light of any major new additions to the terms used in publishersâ copyright and self-archiving policies
What does âgreenâ open access mean? Tracking twelve years of changes to journal publisher self-archiving policies
Traces the 12-year self-archiving policy journey of the original 107 publishers listed on the SHERPA/RoMEO Publisher Policy Database in 2004, through to 2015. Maps the RoMEO colour codes (âgreenâ, âblueâ, âyellowâ and âwhiteâ) and related restrictions and conditions over time. Finds that while the volume of publishers allowing some form of self-archiving (pre-print, post-print or both) has increased by 12% over the twelve years, the volume of restrictions around how, where, and when self-archiving may take place has increased 119%, 190% and 1000% respectively. A significant positive correlation was found between the increase in self-archiving restrictions and the introduction of Gold paid open access options. Suggests that by conveying only the version of a paper that authors may self-archive, the RoMEO colour codes do not address all the key elements of the Bethesda Definition of Open Access. Compares the number of RoMEO âgreenâ publishers over time with those meeting the definition for âredefined greenâ (allowing embargo -free deposit of the post-print in an institutional repository). Finds that RoMEO âgreenâ increased by 8% and âredefined greenâ decreased by 35% over the 12 years. Concludes that the RoMEO colour codes no longer convey a commitment to green open access as originally intended. Calls for open access advocates, funders, institutions and authors to redefine what âgreenâ means to better reflect a publisherâs commitment to self-archiving