CARL has created this Institutional Open Access Policy Template and Toolkit to help prepare those wishing to engage in this activity on their campus. The tools included in this toolkit are designed to support first efforts to create an institution-wide policy, but can also be helpful in developing faculty- or department-specific policies, or in expanding an institution’s existing policies.
May 2020
Version 1.0
*****
Starting in 2003, institutions and funders worldwide have adopted open access mandates or policies that promote openly sharing research outputs as a means of expressing support for – and engagement with – open access. According to the ROARMAP registry of open access mandates and policies, there are currently 795 institution-wide open access policies worldwide.1 Within universities and other research institutions, these policies are typically adopted by a governing body that includes significant representation from the faculty, frequently the Senate.
The Open Scholarship Policy Observatory at the University of Victoria maintains a list of existing open access policies at Canadian institutions. As of mid-2019, there are ten policies or statements at the institution level, seven by librarian groups, and two at the faculty or department level. In the Canadian landscape, the launch of the Tri-Agency Open Access Policy on Publications has been the catalyst for several institutional policies (most mention it explicitly). The Tri-Agency policy mandates that articles resulting from research funded by the three largest federal funders (CIHR, SSHRC, NSERC) must be made available via fully open access no later than 12 months after publication.
In addition to those currently engaged in developing their first institution-wide open access policy, others establishments who adopted a policy in years past are now considering updates (for example, to include more types of research outputs than originally mandated).
CARL has created this suite of tools to help prepare those wishing to engage in this activity. The tools included in this toolkit are designed to support first efforts to create an institution-wide policy, but can also be helpful in developing faculty- or department-specific policies, or in expanding an institution’s existing policies. CARL recognizes that this policy, in the global context, is a baseline policy based on the Canadian community’s current needs. Open policy practices are evolving quickly (for example to strengthen commitments to author rights retention and to require the deposit of research data in open repositories), and it is our expectation that we will need to revise the policy template in response to shifting norms and expectations.
Studies have shown that “opt-out” policies2 achieve the highest level of open publications3 (as opposed to those that merely encourage open access). CARL therefore encourages institutions to adopt policies that are as broad and ambitious in scope as your community will allow. For instance, some institutions may wish to mandate deposit of all scholarly outputs. CARL nevertheless recognizes that implementation of any policy by an institution must take into account the institutional context and culture, existing policies and collective agreements. (The Sections of a Typical Policy & Supporting Documentation portion of this toolkit presents alternate text that you may wish to consider for your institution.)
All contents are openly licensed so that you may use them freely and adapt them to your context.
We recommend reading through the Beginning the Journey section for some tips on approaching the process, as well as the Lessons Learned for some experienced insight from individuals at Canadian institutions who have undertaken this process.
CARL wishes to recognize the work of Joy Kirchner and Lise Brin, who led the creation of this policy template and accompanying toolkit. Thanks as well to the following individuals who played a key role in developing this tool: Guylaine Beaudry, Jonathan Bengtson, Gwen Bird, Donna Bourne-Tyson, Richard Dumont, Mark Robertson, Diane Sauvé, Martha Whitehead, and Elizabeth Yates.
1 http://roarmap.eprints.org, retrieved July 12, 2019.
2 In opt-out policies, making research available in open access is the expectation or default. Researchers must specify, usually in writing, that they do not wish to participate.
3 Vincent-Lamarre, Philippe; Boivin, Jade; Gargouri, Yassine; Larivière, Vincent and Harnad, Stevan (2016) Estimating open access mandate effectiveness: The MELIBEA Score. Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology (JASIST) 67
| SECTIONS | POLICY TEXT |
| INSTITUTIONAL RELEVANCE (see other examples) | Preamble We – [University X]’s community of scholars – are committed to the democratization of knowledge through open access and recognize that open research and open scholarship practices foster collaborative, community-engaged, reproducible, and impactful scholarship. |
| RATIONALE (see other examples) | Open access accelerates discovery across the disciplines and increases the visibility and impact of research. It facilitates connections and collaborations between scholars and strengthens the rigour of published research by ensuring it is open to scrutiny by all, enabling scholars from all sectors, policymakers, and the public to use and build on this knowledge. Freely sharing research with the public also reflects University X’s responsibility and commitment to provide access to research as a publicly funded institution. |
| APPLICATION / ACTIONS (see other examples) | Policy
|
| SCOPE (see other examples) | Scope In the spirit of enabling the broadest access to research, accelerating discovery, enabling transparency and reproducibility of research, this policy applies to journal articles, book chapters, and conference papers produced by faculty members, graduate students and any other scholars affiliated with [University X]. In addition to these types of scholarly output, authors are urged to consider depositing into the institutional repository all their scholarly works, regardless of format, including their research data, in order to enhance visibility and impact of these research outputs. |
| IMPLEMENTATION (see other examples) | Implementation While we strongly believe in the open dissemination of research, we also recognize that we, the University’s authors, maintain full control of our intellectual property. We also recognize that openness may sometimes be at odds with the protection of Indigenous knowledges. The {Specific University Bodies (i.e. Provost’s designate) will therefore waive application of the policy for a particular article or delay access for a specified period of time upon express direction by a [University affiliated] member. This policy is intended to encourage open access to scholarly work and strengthen author rights. This policy is to be read and interpreted in a manner consistent with relevant collective agreements and University policies related to academic freedom and intellectual property. This policy comes into force on [date] and applies to all applicable works published after this date. [Specific university body(ies)] will be responsible for interpreting this policy, resolving disputes concerning its interpretation and application, and recommending changes to the policy to the appropriate university body as necessary. |
| FAQ & Suggested Resources (see examples) |
Open Access policies typically contain the following components: institutional relevance, rationale, application / actions, scope, and implementation. The components are typically succinctly stated so that the entire policy is relatively brief. An accompanying FAQ provides further elaboration, definitions and frequently describes policy implementation details and other processes.
The following sections present the rationale for the text included in the CARL Policy Template while also presenting alternate text from Canadian institutional open access policies that you may wish to consider when drafting a policy at your own institution.
1. Institutional Relevance
Open access policies typically begin with value statements, expressing the value and purpose of the policy to its institutional community. Such statements should align or reflect an institution’s stated values or principles that may be found in key institutional documents such as an academic plan, strategic plan, or research plans.
In the examples provided below, CARL has provided a sample statement and included other exemplars where policy statements directly aligned with institutional documents.
| Institution | Text | Context Comments |
| CARL Policy Template | “We – [University X]’s community of scholars – are committed to the democratization of knowledge through open access and recognize that open scholarship practices foster collaborative, community-engaged, reproducible, and impactful research.” | This text was developed to reflect current priorities around research within CARL member institutions. |
| Athabasca University | “As a publicly funded institution, Athabasca University (AU) supports open access to research outputs.” | As illustrated in this statement, the institutional relevance can be extremely simple and limited to one core aspect. |
| Acadia University | “Acadia University is committed to disseminating research and scholarship as widely as possible.” | Another simple, direct statement. |
| Simon Fraser University | “Simon Fraser University’s goal to be Canada’s most engaged research university invites us to find ways of sharing the research output and creative work of the University with the wider community. The University is, therefore, committed to making accessible and preserving the products of research with the broadest possible community, including other scholars, practitioners, policymakers, and the public at large.” | Reflects text in SFU’s 2012 Strategic Vision. |
| Carleton University | “Carleton University is committed to the principle of disseminating academic knowledge as widely and in as timely a way as possible thereby increasing the impact of this research and expanding the scholarly discourse. In facilitating researchers to disseminate new knowledge, all methods are encouraged including traditional commercial and learned society publications and newer supplementary methods such as network sharing and open access methods. The quality of the research at Carleton is the paramount consideration, normally realized through the peer review process, regardless of the publishing method.” | Reflects text in Carleton’s 2013 mission statement. |
| York University | “ Purpose of an Open Access Policy The enduring goal of a university is to create and disseminate knowledge. York University is committed to disseminating the research performed at the University in ways that make it widely accessible, while protecting the intellectual property rights of its authors. This policy acknowledges:
| York University OA policy also specifically articulates alignment with the University’s Academic Plan and University Research plan in a following section. |
2. Rationale
A rationale section follows, elaborating on the policy’s purpose. Typically the rationale is presented as a straightforward argument for open practices in research, and describes the future benefits of implementing the policy. In this regard they often incorporate principled statements. See also Key Principles section.
| Institution | Text | Contextual Comments |
| CARL Policy Template | “Open access accelerates discovery across the disciplines and increases the visibility and impact of research. It facilitates connections and collaborations between scholars and strengthens the rigour of published research by ensuring it is open to scrutiny by all, enabling scholars from all sectors, policymakers, and the public to use and build on this knowledge. Freely sharing research with the public also reflects University X’s responsibility and commitment to provide access to research as a publicly funded institution.” | This statement synthesizes arguments that CARL has put forward in its original Position Statement on Open Access (2013) as well as in more recent documents including its Scholarly Communication Roadmap (2017) – these are also presented in the Key Principles section of this toolkit. |
| Acadia University | “Open-access literature is digital and freely accessible at the point of use for the reader. It normally contains less copyright or licensing restrictions so researchers and the wider community can rapidly share and benefit from the results of the research.” | This statement of principles is rather less emphatic about the benefits of open access than many others. |
| Simon Fraser University | “Scholarly journals remain the primary means of disseminating research results in most academic disciplines, however, most do not allow public access. Depositing these articles in an open access repository would provide such access, while simultaneously showcasing this work to the world, increasing its impact, creating a collective archive of SFU’s research output, and making more visible the products of our work.” | These principles are focused on benefits to the institution and to its researchers. |
| Concordia University | “whereas Concordia University wishes to take a leadership role in Canada and exemplify social responsibility by supporting the principles of open access and has recently launched Spectrum, an open access repository freely available to receive the refereed academic research output and creative work voluntarily deposited by Concordia faculty and others, with assistance from librarians and other library staff as required, thereby satisfying the requirements of a number of funding agencies in Canada and elsewhere without affecting the intellectual property rights, responsibilities and academic freedom of faculty members” | As the first institution to adopt a policy of this type in Canada, Concordia recognized that doing so could serve as a model for other institutions. |
| University of Windsor | “In addition to the public benefit of such dissemination, this policy is intended to serve faculty interests by promoting greater reach and impact for their work. “Momentum for open access has been growing as numerous funding agencies and institutions worldwide implement open access policies. In Canada, the recent release of the Tri-Agency Open Access Policy on Publications requires grant recipients, as of May 2015, to take steps to ensure that peer-reviewed journal publications arising from supported research are made freely accessible within 12 months of publication.” | |
| York University | As a publicly funded institution, York University is committed to ensuring the greatest possible scholarly and public access to the scholarship and creative works In addition to securing the public benefit of such access, this policy is intended to serve the interests of researchers by promoting the greater reach and preservation of works and establishing norms and expectations around rights of authors and users in the context of rapidly changing technologies and publishing practices. The University values and protects the academic freedom of its researchers. It is not the function of this policy to alter the rights or privileges of individuals defined by collective agreements. | York’s policy affirms the benefits of public access to York’s research and articulates the value of a policy that will centre support for author rights and user rights within the context of rapidly changing technologies and publishing practices and future dissemination models. |
3. Applications/Actions
Following the rationale section, an OA policy succinctly identifies the body that the policy applies to, frames it as a shared agreement and describes the action that will be taken with policy approval. An associated FAQ typically further elaborates on specific points referenced.
Examples of FAQs can be found below. The Scope section may also provide further elaboration of the identified body that the policy applies to.
| Institution | Text | Context Comments |
| CARL Policy Template | “As scholarly authors at [University X], we commit to openly share the products of our research and scholarship. “To do so, we agree to publish in open access publications and/or deposit our scholarly work in [University X]’s open access institutional repository or in a trusted disciplinary archive as early as possible, ideally sometime between the date of acceptance and the date of publication. If applicable, access the file in question can be suppressed for a period of time in order to meet publisher or granting body requirements.” “To facilitate the dissemination and archiving of our work, we hereby grant to [University X] the non-exclusive permission to archive, preserve, reproduce, and freely disseminate an electronic copy of all scholarly journal articles, book chapters, and conference papers authored by us, provided that these works are properly attributed to the authors, and that it is done for non-commercial purposes only. (For further clarification, Creative Commons defined non-commercial uses ‘as not primarily intended for or directed towards commercial advantage or monetary compensation.’)” | These suggested policy points are meant to ultimately strengthen the spirit of the open access movement. The actual crafting of a policy will however need to align with a particular institutional context, so may differ from this model. |
| Athabasca University | “Researchers are encouraged to make the results of their research permanently accessible online, through peer-reviewed open access journals, monographs or textbooks, or through institutional digital repositories or archival systems.“ “Researchers are obliged to comply with the open access publication policy of their research sponsor(s).” “Researchers shall ensure that the rights of human participants regarding protection of their privacy and the confidentiality of information obtained for research purposes is respected in the publication of research outputs.” | In this example, the institution has opted to use a firm stance regarding compliance with funder policies, but a much lighter stance for other scholarly works. |
| University of British Columbia | “Faculty members are encouraged to deposit an electronic copy of their refereed and non-refereed research output and creative work in cIRcle in accordance with applicable copyright arrangements which may be in place for that work. “Where a faculty member has deposited a work with cIRcle, cIRcle shall be granted a non-exclusive licence to preserve and make publicly available the research contained therein. “The authors of works deposited with cIRcle will maintain ownership of their rights in the works.” | |
| York University | “Scholarly articles should be submitted to the repository as early as possible, ideally between the date of acceptance and the date of publication. If applicable, an embargo date can be set to meet publisher requirements. Exceptions to the Senate Policy on Open Access may be made for a particular work, or for a specified period of time, upon express direction in writing by an author or authors, and confirmed by the Dean of Libraries. However, the Tri-Agency Open Access Policy on Publications shall continue to hold as policy compliance is contractual upon receipt of funding.” | This is an example where the institution expects scholarly articles will be deposited in an open access repository unless an author expressly writes to opt out of the policy. Mandatory compliance for grant funded research is stipulated. |
4. Scope
Most policies provide a scope section that provides further elaboration on who is affected by the policy (e.g. an institution’s faculty, researchers) and the kind(s) of content that the policy applies to.
Some policies detail all categories of individuals impacted (full time faculty, graduate students), while others provide broader terms such as “scholars or researchers.” Choices are frequently dependent on institutional culture, institutional policy frameworks or strategic decisions based on anticipated acceptance.
Similarly, the kind(s) of content that the policy applies to are typically defined in the course of policy deliberations with stakeholders. Many policies provide general statements such as “scholarship,” “research outputs”, or “scholarly outputs,” while others are more specific such as such as “peer-reviewed journal articles and book chapters.” Increasingly, policies are expanding beyond scholarly content and open data to encompassing all forms of “open research” to encompass “open practices in research.”
CARL strongly recommends a scope statement that is inclusive of all disciplinary scholarly practices and their research outputs. We are also intentional in advancing the spirit of openness as defined by the Berlin declaration and the trajectory and promise of open access in its vision. To this end, CARL recommends a starting point that provides the broadest definition possible of scholarly outputs to ensure the policy encompasses the future of open scholarship and anticipates growing acceptance of more open practices in research in support of the greater global vision and evolution of openness. This is in line with the Berlin Declaration, which subscribes to the view that “Open access contributions include original scientific research results, raw data and metadata, source materials, digital representations of pictorial and graphical materials and scholarly multimedia material.”
| Institution | Text | Context Comments |
| CARL Policy Template | In the spirit of enabling the broadest access to research, accelerating discovery, enabling transparency and reproducibility of research, this policy applies to journal articles, book chapters, and conference papers produced by faculty members, graduate students and any other scholars affiliated with [University X]. In addition to these types of scholarly output, authors are urged to consider depositing into the institutional repository all their scholarly works, regardless of format, in order to enhance visibility and impact of these research outputs. | In order to align with our values of maximum openness and recognition of the increasing variety in research outputs at our institutions, CARL proposes that the scope be broad and inclusive, thereby encouraging enhanced visibility of all of an institution’s scholarly outputs. |
| University of Prince Edward Island | “All UPEI scholars, including, but not limited to, staff, faculty, graduate and undergraduate students.” | This policy deliberately includes all possible scholars within the institution. |
| York University | “This policy applies to scholarship and publications that are: i. Subject to Tri-Agency funding and Legislation that requires scholarship to be made available open access ii. Non Tri-Agency scholarship and publications except those where the faculty member or other researcher opts not to make their research available open access” Note: Scholarship is defined in the definition section of the policy: “In the context of this policy, scholarship is defined as research outputs typically presented in peer-reviewed scholarly articles, book chapters, and conference papers. Many products of faculty effort may not fall into this category: e.g. monographs and edited collections, newspaper and magazine articles, blogs and social media commentary, fiction and poetry, performances, artworks, ephemeral writings, lecture notes, lecture videos, software, or other such works.” | This policy has a dual purpose: It reinforces mandatory OA compliance for Tri-agency funded scholarship and it provides an opt out institutional OA policy for scholarship that is not governed by grant funding OA requirements. |
| Simon Fraser University | “We commit to deposit all scholarly articles authored or co-authored while we are university authors at SFU, although this policy does not cover any articles published before the adoption of this policy, any articles for which the author entered into an incompatible licensing or assignment agreement before the adoption of this policy, or any articles published after we leave the university. | This policy uses the recommended language from the Harvard Model Policy. |
| University of Windsor | “All faculty and staff are strongly encouraged to deposit digital copies of publications on which they are authors or co-authors in the Scholarship at UWindsor institutional repository. However, researchers whose work is subject to the terms of the Tri-Agency Open Access Policy on Publications will be required to deposit or make available an electronic copy of his or her publication in Scholarship at UWindsor.” | |
| University of Reading | “We encourage our researchers and students to be as open as possible, as early as possible (recognising that circumstances can constrain choices). To this end we have identified 12 things that researchers can do to make their research more open. These are for the most part options to be explored by individual researchers; only Open Access publication of research findings and open sharing of data are requirements of University policy. | The position statement accompanies Reading’s open access policy by encouraging research in practice with themes that include:
|
| University of Cambridge | “The University relies on its researchers to uphold principles of scholarly rigour so that open materials are of the highest research quality and, where appropriate, will aid reproducibility. This may include:
| This position statement expands the scope beyond OA publication to include open data, open education, open sharing of protocols and open collaborative approaches that improve transparency and the reproducibility of research. |
5. Implementation
Factoring in the process and timing by which the policy will be implemented or enabled is an important consideration. The community will want to understand any impact on intellectual property, collective agreements and where and how they comply with the policy.
The degree of detail that is provided and the placement of implementation descriptions is often a strategic choice. Frequently such detail is described in an accompanying FAQ or an accompanying website.
Most policies indicate a future date a policy comes into force at the same time as encouraging retrospective deposit. Future timing is sometimes considered to provide lead time for all stakeholders.
It is highly recommended that some pre-planning be considered ahead of successful ratification so that momentum continues and credibility remains intact post ratification. See Beginning the Journey.
Posted below are sample implementation statements.
[Note: It may be strategic to deliberately call out infrastructure needed to facilitate successful implementation if it is anticipated that such discussion will be an opportunity to garner needed financial or resourcing support. In other contexts such discussion could unnecessarily derail deliberations or could be detrimental to successful ratification of the policy. Timing of such discussions will have to be carefully considered.]
| Institution | Text | Context |
| CARL Policy Template | While we strongly believe in the open dissemination of research, we also recognize that we, the University’s authors, maintain full control of our intellectual property. The {Specific University Bodies (i.e. Provost’s designate) will waive application of the policy for a particular article or delay access for a specified period of time upon express direction by a [University affiliated] member. This policy is intended to encourage open access to scholarly work and strengthen author rights. This policy is to be read and interpreted in a manner consistent with relevant collective agreements and University policies related to academic freedom and intellectual property. This policy comes into force on [date] and applies to all applicable works published after this date. [Specific university body(ies)] will be responsible for interpreting this policy, resolving disputes concerning its interpretation and application, and recommending changes to the policy to the appropriate university body as necessary. | |
| York University | “In accordance with its values and this policy, York University commits to make scholarship produced under its auspices freely available through open access. The commitment is realized by the collaboration of the University and its research community through a conscious choice to participate in the process of making its scholarship available without access restrictions. For greater specificity: i. York University continues to provide a trusted open access repository optimized for online discoverability, for preservation and dissemination of research produced by York faculty members and affiliated researchers, and provide the appropriate supports, including publishing and author rights consultation services, to enable its full utilization; ii. Faculty members and other researchers affiliated with York University publish in an open access publication or deposit their scholarship in a trusted open access repository such as YorkSpace, Osgoode Digital Commons or an equivalent open access repository of their choice through a non-exclusive license; Under the direction of the Dean of Libraries, York University Libraries are charged with the responsibility of oversight of the YorkSpace open access digital repository. Oversight includes the role of preservation and dissemination of scholarship submitted to the repository to assist York’s scholars in meeting the open access policy and, if applicable, compliance with Tri-Agency open access requirements. The Libraries shall consult with the Office of the Vice-President Research & Innovation as appropriate in fulfilling this role.” | This statement within the policy aligns OA with York University’s overarching value in inclusive access in its provision of accessible education and research. It also aligns with York’s adherence to intellectual freedom in its reference to “conscious choice.” It is important to note that York’s policy has been organized and structured in accordance to official York Senate policy documents. Within policy guidelines, a specific person (i.e. Dean of Libraries not delegate of the Provost, for example) is required to be identified. |
| Carleton University | “Carleton University strongly encourages faculty, staff and graduate students to deposit into CURVE electronic copies of their research papers, peer-reviewed articles, conference proceedings. Efforts continue to integrate other adjudicated research output, data sets, creative works and academic work in keeping with the standards of the author’s discipline. “Carleton faculty, staff and graduate students are also encouraged to know their rights as authors and to retain copyright of their works through use of appropriate author addenda when negotiating publication of their works. Further, Carleton encourages faculty to understand Open Access policies and procedures of their publisher. These policies set out terms and conditions under which open access can be provided, such as the version of a work, which can be made available, time delays after publication and required credit statements or links to the original publication.” | This policy not only encourages researchers to deposit publications in the institutional repository but it also urges them to retain their rights during the negotiation process linked to publication. |
6. FAQ
Frequently asked questions (or sometimes a comprehensive web resource about OA) typically accompany the policy document to further elaborate on policy statements, provide detail on context and to provide an active list of answers to questions that are frequently raised. FAQ’s also serve to provide consistent messaging that leads can point to. Strategically it may be important to pull out critical FAQ’s on an accompanying website to give some statements needed prominence and visibility.
In the case of Athabasca University, there is a separate official “Procedures” document that accompanies the policy and provides definitions, procedure, and additional details.
Examples of FAQs:
Examples of institutional web resources about OA:
A good starting point in the drafting of a policy and accompanying communications documents is to identify key principles or values that will resonate with your institutional community so that the policy has strong institutional relevance and, therefore, greater potential for wider acceptance. These are best developed by aligning with core institutional values or principles derived from key university documents such as the university’s strategic plan or academic plan. By doing so, the policy signals to your community that it speaks to the heart of the institution’s ethos, that it is mission driven, and aligned with institutional priorities.
Themed below are common categories of value statements that are frequently incorporated in open access policies. You may find these useful in adapting these to suit your own organization’s value statements or stated institutional priorities.
Intellectual and academic freedom
We believe that researchers have a right to choose where and how they share their scholarship. At the same time, all individuals have a fundamental right to unrestricted access to knowledge.
Democratization of knowledge
We believe that publicly funded research must be freely available to all. We further believe in the potential of technology to democratize knowledge production and use.
Advancement of research
We believe the mission of universities is to create and disseminate knowledge. Open scholarship is the best way to accelerate scholarly research across the disciplines and to connect scholars worldwide.
Benefit to society
We believe that an open scholarship system that is accessible to all scholars and readers offers the surest path towards positively impacting human life on all parts of the globe.
Integrity of scholarship
We believe that opening research to wide scrutiny will enhance reproducibility, increase accountability and promote collaboration – thus leading to higher visibility and impact.
Itemized below are a number of preparatory steps that are useful to consider before launching open access policy work. This is followed by our suggested top ten key strategies.
Preparatory Steps
Identify governance structures, procedural requirements and other processes including collective agreements by which official policies are developed and approved on your campus. This will determine the timeline you will need to consider, the formatting and shape of the actual policy and whether there is a particular administrative group or Senate body that has oversight over official University policy development, approval processes or other administrative requirements. Consider, for instance, who votes for an approval of a policy or who has influence over the outcome. Individuals responsible for managing University procedural documents and policies (ie. Senate Secretary, Legal Counsel’s office etc.) are frequently very good resource people to discuss logistics early on. Consider the character and makeup of a committee or working group to advance an open access policy. Consider:
- The reporting structure, governance, membership of the committee that will be most advantageous to advance the work.
- Identify early on the sponsor for the committee and what needs to happen to influence support for such a committee if needed.
- In most cases, the Librarian representatives on the committee will be the most knowledgeable about the broader OA landscape and various intersections of scholarly communications and open science in all disciplines. Likely library representatives will need to present or build in educational opportunities so that all committee members are brought up to speed with the larger OA landscape and all its manifestations.
- Begin the work of constructing a planning framework, communication plan or roadmap to identify steps and phases to advance the work. An initial internal environmental scan may be helpful to:
- identify faculty or students who are publishing open scholarship or participating in open access in order to identify current uptake, potential allies, stakeholders, champions or committee members.
- develop mechanisms to identify levels of understanding of open access, disciplinary attitudes, cultural perspectives and uptake for open access. Suggestions include:
- identify where and how open access has particular traction;
- identify the “flavour” of the uptake and how it is supported. This will be helpful in beginning the work of considering best framing for campus engagement and communication.
- Consider identifying some initial low risk avenues to get a sense of the campus climate for engaging in the potential for an open access policy discussion or to begin the work of socializing the need for an open access policy:
- identify initial campus awareness events or educational campaigns that may be a strategic first step (i.e. authors rights workshops, publication agreements consultations, introductory sessions on OA).
Listed below are ten key strategies for undertaking the journey towards an institutional OA policy. While we cannot guarantee these will lead to success, it is our hope that you will see the process as productive and positive, regardless of outcome.
Top 10 Strategies
1. Identify the most critical or initial preparatory steps to get started
While it is always wise to have an initial plan it is also equally important to remember that the plan will evolve as learning occurs through campus engagement. Consider thinking about your plan as a living document that will grow and develop as you progress and learn from campus interaction. Consider staging elements as more is known.
We also strongly suggest in unionized environments that collective agreements are examined to ensure language is alignment with scholarly provisions including academic freedom statement.
2. Identify Campus Champions (Faculty or Student Champions or Other Influential Stakeholders)
Consider who has influence on campus and how groups, individuals or other stakeholders could be engaged to champion efforts or lend credibility to actions. Starting where there has already been traction or success in campus open scholarship arenas may be a good starting point.
3. Focus on Institutional Relevance
Draft a policy that speaks to institutional relevance. Consider alignment with institutional strategic priorities, academic plans or research plans. Use relevant phrases from these documents that signals why and how the policy is highly relevant to the campus community.
Consider incorporating institutional mottos, points of pride, or other overarching institutional principles that resonates most with your campus community.
4. Surface Meaningful Benefits of OA
Most open access policies articulate the benefits of open access to their community. Typically succinct, highly relevant statements are included in the policy itself with further elaboration in the accompanying FAQ, website and presentation materials.
As a starting point, consider developing a fulsome list of benefits that can be incorporated into policy documents or educational materials. Shape the benefits to fit the institutional context, specific audience, various disciplinary perspectives, and most importantly aligned with the core values, mission and principles of one’s organization.
Typical benefits include: increased visibility and reach of research (and therefore impact), equitable global access to research, ease in reuse and distribution of work, supports for author rights, acceleration of discovery, transparency and reproducibility of research. See section six of the toolkit for inspiration from other policies.
5. Strive for a Faculty-Driven Process
Given open access policies depend on faculty support, it is recommended the faculty perspective is represented in the policy. It is also recommended that faculty lead campus engagement so that the framing of the benefits are from a trusted collegial voice. Selecting respected faculty to facilitate presentations or discussion groups in partnership with librarians is a common approach. Depending on patterns of influence, institutional culture, and where openness has traction, other leads could also be considered or in partnership with others. For example, including a high level administrator in the mix may be very effective in some organizations while in others it may be negatively received as a top-down approach. The Chief Information Officer (CIO) may be an important ally, spokesperson or committee member if endorsement of system wide technical infrastructure support is critical to success.
6 . Be Prepared for Varied Disciplinary Perspectives
Surfacing disciplinary differences is critical to ensuring successful cross campus dialogue. In this regard, it may be strategic to choose faculty leads and librarians from a variety of disciplinary backgrounds and areas of expertise in your presentation team. Identifying faculty support from within the different faculties can be very beneficial to the campus engagement process.
7. Consider Change Management Principles as Part of Process
For some stakeholders, advancing open access can feel like a threatening change in practice. Consider integrating change management practices as part of your campus engagement strategy and in the framing of presentations. It is important to stay curious and allow for a diversity of opinion to surface so that meaningful, transparent dialogue can be part of the process. It is equally important to build trust in the process, to consider how trust building most effectively works organizationally and to acknowledge and surface legitimate concerns. It is recommended that the FAQ be developed as campus engagement progresses in order to ensure consistency in responses and messaging and as a potential avenue to address areas of concern.
8. Understand Your Institution’s Culture
The shaping of a successful policy and its rollout is highly dependent on inserting language and educational materials that are informed by the institutional culture one is operating in. This can vary from faculty to faculty or discipline to discipline. Preparing presentation materials that can be templated and then adapted to differing cultural perspectives will go along way to limiting unnecessary flash points.
Finding voices and presenters who are trusted, respected facilitators is also helpful. See also number 5 above.
9. Continued Momentum and Sustainability
From the outset factor in what will happen after a policy is approved so that your campus continues to be engaged in open access and support and interest doesn’t languish post approval of a policy. It will also be important to factor in what infrastructure and sustained support will be needed to ensure long term success. It is recommended a sustainability plan is considered from the outset.
10. Take the Long View and Enjoy the Journey
Advancing an open access policy can be years in the making. It likely already began with providing institutional supports for publishing in open access journals. Every institution will have its own journey and timing can be everything. Sometimes elements need to be staged to socialize acceptance and experience with open access before a policy can be achieved. Be prepared to see this process as a journey. Sometimes the journey will be slow and at other times it will be fast. The winning strategy is to recognize that this journey is an enormous opportunity to foster campus awareness and education and engage in important campus dialogue whether the policy is successful or not.
The following are excerpts from interviews conducted with library directors from Canadian universities about their experiences working towards the adoption of open access policies within their institutions. Interviewees include:
- Concordia University: Guylaine Beaudry, University Librarian
- Simon Fraser University: Gwen Bird, Dean of Library Services
- Université de Montréal: Richard Dumont, previously Directeur général, Direction générale, and Diane Sauvé, Directrice, Direction du soutien à la réussite, à la recherche et à l’enseignement
- York University: Joy Kirchner, Dean of Libraries
What defining institutional values or characteristics did you have to consider before launching an open access discussion on your campus?
G. Beaudry (Concordia): What happened at Concordia is that we were preparing for Congress at Concordia in 2010; Ronald Rudin in the History Department presented the idea of passing an OA resolution, to have a lasting legacy of Congress. I can certainly say that open access is something we’ve discussed often at Concordia, it’s part of our DNA, even, and it was a natural progression to consider such a project, and to have something lasting after Congress.
G. Bird (SFU): SFU started working on the open access policy in 2015. This was aided by an implementation of our libraries strategic plan where we identified core values for the libraries. “Openness” was one of the core values identified throughout the plan and is echoed throughout the plan. It had been part of SFU Libraries’ direction for many years. Further, as a community engaged institution, it is an important value to not lock up scholarship. It was easy to situate the values of the institution and the library in the construction of the policy.
R. Dumont and D. Sauvé (UdeM): Open access aligns perfectly with the institution’s views. In fact, the UdeM believes that “knowledge advances, both within and at the crossroads of established disciplines, result in social progress and are touchstones of a democratic society, for the benefit of citizens”. It also believes that “knowledge sharing and transfer are essential to a more accurate understanding of the world in which we live.” Lastly, as a public institution for education and research, the UdeM believes in the power of actions for the common good and considers the overall improvement of society to be the primary purpose of education and research.
J. Kirchner (York): I noted there was very good scholarly communications activities and open access engagement on campus but that it occurred in pockets. I assessed that a coordinated approach was needed to advance campus-wide discussion on critical issues in scholarly communications and publishing, including: open scholarship supports, new modes of research dissemination infrastructure needs, the dysfunction of current scholarly publishing economical models, data management supports and so on. I was also aware that we did not have a mechanism to help our faculty with new Tri-agency open access grant funding mandates and emerging requirements for data management. I noted that while our library had extraordinary strengths in scholarly communications as demonstrated by our management of 46 open access journals, two robust open access repositories, a previously approved York University Libraries open access policy, and important individual scholarship and activity from those involved in this space, we were not organizationally structured to fully support campus needs and activity. I was also informed that there was an earlier attempt with librarians and a faculty member to engage the campus in launching an open access policy that was not successful.
What was the impetus for initiating a policy? What steps were taken to initiate an open access policy on your campus? What was the first thing that needed to happen?
G. Beaudry (Concordia): The first thing to happen was to have the conversation on campus; different means were taken, Gerald Beasley [University Librarian at that time] went to many, many departmental meetings to talk about OA. We launched our institutional repository during that period, Spectrum, so there was a physical mechanism to welcome the deposits. One on one conversations, town halls, departmental assemblies, meetings with other committees such as priorities and planning; there were two sessions at Senate, and some back and forth about the wording. It was really focused on the resolution and not on the process. Get the resolution before Congress, and get the IR ready for the beginning of the policy.
G. Bird (SFU): This was not the first time we considered an open access policy. SFU has history with an established OA fund that helped raise awareness about open access; faculty and students knew to come to us because we administer that fund. We are also the host institution for the Public Knowledge Project (PKP). We had a sense in all of this activity that there was support for an OA policy. We also participated in CARL ITHAKA Research Survey where we learned that support for open access from SFU faculty was the highest of all CARL (Canadian Association of Research Libraries) libraries so we knew there was great support.
R. Dumont and D. Sauv (UdeM): Although there is not yet an open access policy at the Université de Montréal [in 2018], work did begin on it in 2015 and is still underway. In fact, it was in 2015, at the recommendation of the Library Advisory Committee, that a joint working group reporting to both the UdeM Research Committee and the Library Advisory Committee was established, chaired by two researchers. […] Against the backdrop of creating the previously mentioned joint working group, there is the horrendous increase in the cost of scholarly journals, and commercial publishers’ business model that entraps the libraries into an “all or nothing” situation by requiring them to subscribe to large sets. These factors had existed for a number of years, but they hit the UdeM harder starting in 2014. Actions and mobilization of the academic community therefore began on this front, which has everything to do with the objectives of open access, namely the best possible accessibility of research results.
J. Kirchner (York): With the establishment of a campus-wide Open Access Open Data Steering Committee, co-chaired by the Dean of Libraries and AVP of Research & Innovation, we decided that since a data management policy was needed we would embark on a joint open access open data policy since the issues were intertwined. It became clear with some early campus discussions that before we could discuss open data and data management, the community needed to be better informed about open access first. To that end it was decided that we would create an open access policy subcommittee and a data management subcommittee. […] The Open Access policy was developed and created within the subcommittee and brought to the Steering Committee for approval. With the Steering Committee, a campus education plan was rolled out and all supporting documentation that included a FAQ, presentation materials and plans to speak at all faculty council meetings and Associate Deans of Research meetings. We also organized several town halls. The goal was to work through a process of bringing the policy for Senate discussion and approval by the end of that year.
What did you consider the best reason the university should invest in devoting time and energy for this discussion?
G. Beaudry (Concordia): To take the opportunity to bring this topic to the community and have a conversation. After almost ten years, at least half of the faculty members had an opinion on OA; bringing OA as a topic of discussion was the best reason.
R. Dumont and D. Sauvé (UdeM): All the reasons put forward by the open access movement are good ones for introducing measures and strategies in open access publishing! Ranging from the more altruistic ones of better access to research results for everyone, to the more “selfish” ones of expanding our researchers’ reputation, as well as better use of the public funds entrusted to us for carrying out the university’s mission.
J. Kirchner (York): It gave us the momentum and opportunity to have fulsome discussion about open access and related topics on author rights, publications, and institutional repositories. The discussion also allowed the library to work through our support models within our organizational restructuring work as we learned more about what our community needed help with. It was also beneficial in giving the Libraries heightened visibility about our knowledge and expertise in this space.
What was the biggest lesson learned? What were the most significant challenges, sticking points, or perceptions you needed to tackle and how did you get past this?
G. Beaudry (Concordia): We need a process to upload the documents for faculty members, how to add the metadata, because faculty members do not have time and do not do it that frequently. If they are only doing it three or four times a year, they do not remember how. I think we failed them there, because we are talking about OA but the tools are not performing very well. Some kind of enigma here. Easy to say 10 years after the fact.
G. Bird (SFU): The Faculty Association had serious concerns about a strict opt out policy. They were concerned with how the policy might be enforced. Their concerns eventually led to wording changes and a compromise. It was important that we take the policy through to Senate with support from the Faculty Association, not over their objections. So after careful deliberation, the committee agreed to compromise to a more aspirational policy in order to address these concerns.
When the policy went to Senate, we received another objection we did not anticipate from a staff representative that asked why staff were not mentioned in the policy. (Senate doesn’t have jurisdiction over staff so the policy did not include staff.) The version was endorsed at Senate with acknowledgement that staff are welcome to contribute as a footnote in the policy.
R. Dumont and D. Sauvé (UdeM): There is a French expression that says “you can’t pull on a flower to make it grow”. The open access matter is one that requires time and patience, but more than 15 years after the Budapest Declaration, we feel that we have come a long way in terms of understanding the issues and being committed to the purposes of open access. Among the challenges, there is researchers’ sensitivity – and rightly so – to anything that could mean additional administrative tasks that would eat up valuable research time… Therefore, we have to be sure to plan for establishing simple and effective terms and conditions for an open access repository, and reassure the community about this when presenting the potential of introducing an open access policy.
J. Kirchner (York): Initially I was very worried about the loss of momentum due to the labour disruption. However, I convinced the committee that this is a journey and we should continue. It helped that the Steering Committee members enjoyed the committee work and the engaged global discussion the work generated. They were keen to carry on. I also learned that every institution has its own context, culture and perspective. While some elements worked well in some other places I worked, they did not work at York. For instance, showing the Harvard open access model or examples from other non-Canadian institutions did not go over well at York. They wanted Canadian examples.
What was the biggest surprise?
G. Beaudry (Concordia): The discussion was good, there were very strong advocates, and it was a good discussion and debate. Before the Senate meeting we estimated we had at least 66%, and it was passed unanimously.
G. Bird (SFU): I probably should not have been surprised that the Faculty Association would be one of our biggest negotiations and that they would be opposed to a strongly worded policy.
J. Kirchner (York): We learned quite late in the process that there was a specific Senate policy template we needed to apply. This changed the construction of what was included in the original policy and some other specific elements needed to be included to adhere to official policy requirements. For instance, a specific person needed to be named who has oversight over the policy. In earlier versions we simply stated it as the Provost’s designate. Due to this policy requirement, it was decided the Dean of Libraries would have the oversight role in consultation with the Provost and VP Research as needed.
Main Types of OA Policies
The following are the three main types of open access policies (though use of these designations is somewhat fluid):
Mandatory deposit policy – see the Université de Liège’s mandate as described in these 2007 meeting minutes.
- Policy seeks no rights
- Mandatory deposit upon acceptance for publication; no waivers
- Restricted items are dark, but metadata is open
- Restricted items are available in full text to institutional members, and through “request a copy” button for external members
- Deposit is a precondition for research assessment (tenure, promotion, grants)
“Opt-out” or rights-retention policy – see the Harvard Model Open Access Policy
- Policy grants institution (without action by author) a nonexclusive license to make scholarly works available for noncommercial use through repository
- Flips the switch from “opt-in” to “opt-out”
- Waiver provided as option
- Not compulsory
Resolution-based or “opt-in” policy
- Non-binding resolution to make “best effort” to deposit or publish OA
Canadian Open Access Policies
The Open Scholarship Policy Observatory at the University of Victoria maintains a list of existing open access policies at Canadian institutions. As of mid-2019, there are ten policies or statements at the institution level, seven by librarian groups, and two at the faculty or department level. Almost all of these are non-binding resolution-based policies (see sidebar).
International Open Access Policies
In addition to the Harvard and Liège policies (discussed in the sidebar) which are frequently used as a starting point for discussions within institutions, another interesting model is the UK Scholarly Communications Licence (UK-SCL) and Model Policy. It has been developed consortially, but has not yet been adopted by any UK institutions.
A Note About the Evolution of ‘Open’ Policies
It is anticipated that open policies will evolve or be more expansive as open data, open education, open pedagogy, and other forms of open scholarship continue to gain ground. We look forward to revising this page as new forms of policies emerge.
The following resources may also be of use when developing an institutional open access policy:
- ACRL’s Scholarly Communication Toolkit: Open Access Policies & Publishing
- Another useful guide is the Good Practices for University Open Access Policies (Berkman Klein Center, Harvard, regularly updated)
- Also useful and comprehensive: Policy Guidelines for the Development and Promotion of Open Access (A. Swan, UNESCO, 2012)
The following are useful resources for institutions who have adopted a policy:
- Institutions may wish to join the Coalition of Open Access Policy Institutions (COAPI)
- Institutions should ensure their policy is included in the Registry of Open Access Repository Mandates and Policies (ROARMAP), which tracks both institutional and funder policies.
It should be noted that institutions can also demonstrate their support for open scholarship in other ways:
- By signing on to open access declarations such as the Jussieu Call for Open science and Bibliodiversity
- By investing in platforms and services that are part of the open scholarship infrastructure, e.g. via the Global Sustainability Coalition for Open Science (SCOSS) or Invest in Open Infrastructure (IOI)
- By purchasing memberships with open access publishers that result in reductions in article processing fees (APCs) for the institution’s authors
- By moving away from the reliance on impact factors and other similar measures of prestige when assessing the value of publications for tenure and promotion (see DORA – San Francisco Declaration on Research Assessment)
The CARL Institutional Open Access Policy Toolkit, was developed by members of the CARL Advancing Research Committee and is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
