What does ‘green’ open access mean? Tracking twelve years of changes to journal publisher self-archiving policies

Abstract

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 (‘green’, ‘blue’, ‘yellow’ and ‘white’) 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 12 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 ‘green’ publishers over time with those meeting the definition for ‘redefined green’ (allowing embargo-free deposit of the post-print in an institutional repository). Finds that RoMEO ‘green’ increased by 8% and ‘redefined green’ 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 ‘green’ means to better reflect a publisher’s commitment to self-archiving.

Keywords

Embargo periods green open access institutional repository publisher policies self-archiving

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Anon (2015) Internet archive: Wayback Machine. Available at: http://archive.org/web/ (accessed 6 February 2015).

Archambault

. (2014) Proportion of Open Access Papers Published in Peer-Reviewed Journals at the European and World Levels – 1996–2013. Available at: http://science-metrix.com/en/publications/reports/proportion-of-open-access-papers-published-in-peer-reviewed-journals-at-the (accessed 20 June 2016).

Bailey

BCW

(2001) What Is Open Access? ‘Open Access’ Defined. Available at: http://digital-scholarship.org/cwb/WhatIsOA.pdf (accessed 22 June 2016).

Berlin Declaration on Open Access to Knowledge in the Sciences and Humanities (2003) Available at: http://openaccess.mpg.de/Berlin-Declaration (accessed 22 June 2016).

Bjork

Laakso

Welling

(2014) Anatomy of green open access. Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology 65(2): 237–250.

Boyes

(2015) A day in the life of an open access research adviser. In: Unlocking Research. Blog of the University of Cambridge Office for Scholarly Communication. Available at: https://unlockingresearch.blog.lib.cam.ac.uk/?p=340 (accessed 22 June 2016).

Budapest Open Archive Initiative ( 2002) Available at: http://www.budapestopenaccessinitiative.org/read (accessed 22 June 2016).

Creative Commons (n.d.) Creative Commons Licences. Available at: https://creativecommons.org/licenses/ (accessed 22 June 2016).

Fry

. (2011) PEER Behavioural Research: Authors and Users vis-a-vis Journals and Repositories. D4.2 Final Report. Available at: https://dspace.lboro.ac.uk/2134/12967 (accessed 22 June 2016).

10.

Gadd

Oppenheim

Probets

(2003) RoMEO studies 4: An analysis of journal publishers’ copyright agreements. Learned Publishing. Available at: http://www.ingentaconnect.com/content/alpsp/lp/2003/00000016/00000004/art00009 (accessed 22 June 2016).

11.

Harnad

(2011) Open access to research: Changing researcher behaviour through university and funder mandates. JeDEM: eJournal of eDemocracy & Open Government 3(1): 33–41. Available at: www.jedem.org (accessed 22 June 2016).

12.

Harnad

(2015) Optimizing open access policy. The Serials Librarian 69: 133–141. Available at: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/0361526X.2015.1076368\nhttp://www.tandfonline.com/doi/pdf/10.1080/0361526X.2015.1076368 (accessed 22 June 2016).

13.

Harnad

. (2004) The Green and the Gold roads to Open Access. Nature Focus, 17 May. Available at: http://www.nature.com/nature/focus/accessdebate/21.html (accessed 22 June 2016).

14.

Harnad

. (2008) The access/impact problem and the Green and Gold roads to open access: An update. Serials Review 34(1): 36–40.

15.

HEFCE (2014) Research Excellence Framework. Available at: http://www.ref.ac.uk/ (accessed 22 June 2016).

16.

HEFCE (2015) Policy for Open Access in the Post-2014 Research Excellence Framework (July 2015), pp. 1–11. Available at: http://www.hefce.ac.uk/pubs/year/2014/201407/#d.en.86771\n (accessed 22 June 2016).

17.

Hubbard

(n.d.) Green, Blue, Yellow, White & Gold. Available at: http://www.sherpa.ac.uk/documents/sherpaplusdocs/Nottingham-colour-guide.pdf (accessed 22 June 2016).

18.

Jenkins

. (2008) RoMEO Studies 7: Creation of a controlled vocabulary to analyse copyright transfer agreements. Journal of Information Science 34(3): 290–307. Available at: http://jis.sagepub.com/content/34/3/290\nhttp://jis.sagepub.com/content/34/3/290.abstract\nhttp://jis.sagepub.com/content/34/3/290.full.pdf (accessed 22 June 2016).

19.

Jenkins

. (2007) RoMEO Studies 8: Self-archiving: The logic behind the colour-coding used in the Copyright Knowledge Bank. Program 41(2): 124–133. Available at: http://www.emeraldinsight.com/10.1108/00330330710742908 (accessed 22 June 2016).

20.

Kramer

Bosnen

(2016) 101 Innovations in scholarly communication (Results: Selecting a journal to submit to). 101 Innovations in Scholarly Communication. Available at: http://dashboard101innovations.silk.co/page/Select-journal-to-submit-to (accessed 22 June 2016).

21.

Laakso

(2014) Green open access policies of scholarly journal publishers: A study of what, when, and where self-archiving is allowed. Scientometrics 99: 475–494.

22.

Loughborough University (2016) Research Data Archive. Available at: http://lboro.figshare.com (accessed 22 June 2016).

23.

Miguel

Chincilla-Rodriguez

de Moya-Anegn

(2011) Open access and Scopus: A new approach to scientific visibility from the standpoint of access. Journal of the American Society for Information Science & Technology 62(6): 1130–1145.

24.

Nicholas

Huntington

Rowlands

(2005) Open access journal publishing: The views of some of the world’s senior authors. Journal of Documentation 61(4): 497–519. Available at: http://www.emeraldinsight.com/doi/pdfplus/10.1108/00220410510607499 (accessed 22 June 2016).

25.

NISO/ALPSP Journal Article Versions (JAV) Technical Working Group (2008) Journal Article Versions (JAV): Recommendations of the NISO/ALPSP JAV Technical Working Group. Available at: http://epubs.cclrc.ac.uk/work-details?w=53361\nhttp://www.niso.org/publications/rp/RP-8-2008.pdf (accessed 22 June 2016).

26.

Pinfield

Salter

Bath

(2015) The ‘total cost of publication’ in a hybrid open-access environment: Institutional approaches to funding journal article-processing charges in combination with subscriptions. Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology 67(7): 1751–1766.

27.

Proudman

(2015) Analysis of Funder Open Access Policies around the World. Available at: http://sparceurope.org/analysis-of-funder-open-access-policies-around-the-world/ (accessed 22 June 2016).

28.

Research Consulting (2014) Counting the Costs of Open Access. Available at: http://www.ariessys.com/wp-content/uploads/Research-Consulting-Counting-the-Costs-of-OA-Final.pdf (accessed 22 June 2016).

29.

ROARMAP (2016) Registry of Open Access Repository Mandates and Policies. Available at: http://roarmap.eprints.org/ (accessed 22 June 2016).

30.

SHERPA (2016a) RoMEO Database. Available at: http://www.sherpa.ac.uk/romeo (accessed 22 June 2016).

31.

SHERPA (2016b) JULIET Database. Available at: http://www.sherpa.ac.uk/JULIET (accessed 22 June 2016).

32.

SPARC (2014) How open is it? Version 2.0. Available at: https://www.plos.org/files/HowOpenIsIt_English.pdf (accessed 22 June 2016).

33.

SPARC (2016) Open Access Spectrum Evaluation Tool. Available at: http://oaspecturm.org/ (accessed 22 June 2016).

34.

Spezi

. (2013) Researchers’ green open access practice: A cross-disciplinary analysis. Journal of Documentation 69(3): 334–359. Available at: http://www.emeraldinsight.com/journals.htm?issn=0022–0418&volume=69&issue=3&articleid=17088385&show=html (accessed 22 June 2016).

35.

Suber

(2004) Praising progress, preserving precision. SPARC Open Access Newsletter 77.

36.

Suber

. (2003) Bethesda Statement on Open Access Publishing. Available at: http://dash.harvard.edu/handle/1/4725199 (accessed 22 June 2016).

37.

Sullivan

(2014) Tech services on the Web: SHERPA/RoMEO: Publisher copyright policies & self-archiving. Technical Services Quarterly 31(1): 84–85.

38.

Swan

Brown

(2004) Authors and open access publishing. Cogprints, pp. 219–224. Available at: http://www.trans.uma.es/numeros.html (accessed 22 June 2016).

39.

Troll Covey

(2009) Self-archiving journal articles: A case study of faculty practice and missed opportunity. portal: Libraries and the Academy 9(April): 223–251.

40.

Troll Covey

(2013) Publisher support for self-archiving: Laudatory or predatory? In: Proceedings of the international conference on digital libraries ICDL 2013 (eds Ganguly

Battacharya

), New Delhi, India, 27–29 November 2013, pp. 56–68. Available at: http://works.bepress.com/denise_troll_covey/79/ (accessed 22 June 2016).

41.

Waaijters

. (2008) Copyright angst, lust for prestige and cost control: What institutions can do to ease open access. Ariadne: Web Magazine for Information Professionals. Available at: http://www.ariadne.ac.uk/issue57/waaijers-et-al (accessed 22 June 2016).

42.

Ware

Mabe

(2009) The STM Report, (November). Available at: http://www.stm-assoc.org/2009_10_13_MWC_STM_Report.pdf (accessed 22 June 2016).

43.

Xia

. (2012) A review of open access self-archiving mandate policies. portal: Libraries and the Academy 12(1): 85–102.